barnet’s core strategy issues and options consultation report · local development framework...

Local Development Framework

Barnet’s Core Strategy Issues and Options Consultation

Report

November 2009

Issues and Options Report

Table of Contents

Consultation on Issues and Options .................................................................................. 1

List of Respondents ............................................................................................................. 2

Summary of comments received and the council’s response ......................................... 5 General Comments and Opening Sections of Issues and Options ....................................................5

Barnet Council’s Response ............................................................................................................8 Vision and objectives ..........................................................................................................................9

Barnet Council’s Response ............................................................................................................9 Strategic Background .........................................................................................................................9

Barnet Council’s Response ..........................................................................................................10 Profile of Barnet ................................................................................................................................10

Barnet Council’s Response ..........................................................................................................10 Theme 1: Growing Successfully .......................................................................................................11 Issue 1 – Growing Successfully – City Suburb.................................................................................11 Issue 1a - Business Opportunities and Economic Prosperity...........................................................11 Issue 1b – Improving the skills of local residents and ensuring local economic prosperity..............12

Barnet Council’s Response ..........................................................................................................13 Theme 2: Delivering the infrastructure to accommodate growth and ensure sustainable development .....................................................................................................................................13 Issue 2a – Balancing Barnet’s changing travel needs......................................................................13

Barnet Council’s Response ..........................................................................................................15 Issue 2b – Providing community facilities for sustainable communities ...........................................15

Barnet Council’s Response ..........................................................................................................17 The Core Strategy Implementation Framework- ..............................................................................17

Barnet Council’s Response ..........................................................................................................18 Theme 3: Meeting Housing Aspirations............................................................................................18 Issue 3a – The number and distribution of new housing development ............................................18

Barnet Council’s Response ..........................................................................................................19 Issue 3b – Sustainable design principles .........................................................................................19

Barnet Council’s Response ..........................................................................................................20 Issue 3c – Low density suburbs........................................................................................................20

Barnet Councils Response...........................................................................................................21 Issue 3d – Meeting the housing needs of the diverse communities in Barnet .................................22 Issue 3e – Affordable housing ..........................................................................................................23

Barnet Council’s Response ..........................................................................................................25 Theme 4: Planning for vitality and viability of a network of suburban town centres .........................25 Issue 4a – The role and function of suburban town centres in Barnet .............................................25

Barnet Council’s Response ..........................................................................................................27 Issue 4b – Enabling change and enhancing town centres ...............................................................27

Barnet Council’s Response ..........................................................................................................28 Issue 4c – Managing the evening and night time and entertainment economy ...............................28

Barnet Council’s Response ..........................................................................................................30 Theme 5: Planning, development and growth to be environmentally sensitive ...............................30 Issue 5a – Choosing sustainable locations for development ...........................................................30

Barnet Council’s Response ..........................................................................................................31


Issue 5b – Climate change and living within environmental limits....................................................31 Barnet Council’s Response ..........................................................................................................32

Site Specific Comments....................................................................................................................33

Comments from Community Meetings on Planning for the Future of Barnet ............. 35 Planning for the Future of Barnet – Community Meetings ...............................................................35 Meetings ...........................................................................................................................................35 Theme 1 - Growing successfully.......................................................................................................37 Theme 2 - Delivering the infrastructure to accommodate growth and ensure sustainable development .....................................................................................................................................37 Theme 3 - Meeting housing aspirations ...........................................................................................38 Theme 4 - Planning for vitality and viability of a network of suburban town centres........................39 Theme 5 - Planning development and growth to be environmentally sensitive ...............................39 General comments included.............................................................................................................39

Report on LDF Stakeholder Workshops........................................................................... 41

Citizens Panel Responses ................................................................................................. 49 Citizen’s Panel Questionnaire Responses .......................................................................................51 Theme 1 – Growing Successfully .....................................................................................................52

Barnet Council’s Response ..........................................................................................................52 Theme 2 – Delivering the infrastructure to accommodate growth and ensure sustainable development. ....................................................................................................................................53

Barnet Council’s Response ..........................................................................................................53 Theme 3 – Meeting Housing Aspirations..........................................................................................53 Theme 4 – Planning for vitality and viability of a network of suburban town centres .......................54 Theme 5 – Planning, development and growth to be environmentally sensitive .............................54 What we missed in the Core Strategy Issues and Options ..............................................................55 And what they thought of the questionnaire .....................................................................................55

Barnet Council’s Response ..........................................................................................................56

Representations Submitted via ‘Three Strands Petition’................................................ 57

‘Save Our Suburbs’ Representations ............................................................................... 59

Total Number of Responses from Citizens Panel and Questionnaire Forms ............... 61


1 Consultation on Issues and Options 1.1.1 The Local Development Framework (LDF) will replace the Unitary

Development Plan (UDP) adopted May 2006. It will embody spatial planning – the practice of ‘place shaping’ to deliver social, economic and environmental outcomes and provide the overarching local policy framework for delivering sustainable development in Barnet. The LDF is a folder of separate documents, the most important of which is the Core Strategy. This will contain the ‘vision’ for the LDF and the most fundamental cross-cutting objectives and policies that the local authority and its partners will seek to deliver.

1.1.2 The Core Strategy is the main document in the LDF. It sets out the key elements of our planning vision and strategy for Barnet, and all other documents within the LDF must be consistent with it.

1.1.3 Barnet published its Core Strategy Issues and Options on June 30th 2008. Consultation on the document ran for 3 months until September 29th 2008. It was widely publicised:

• in all Barnet’s 16 libraries (hard copies) and at council offices at Hendon Town Hall and North London Business Park;

• by publishing a public notice in the Barnet Press;

• by publishing a press release;

• via e-mails and letters to all contacts on our LDF consultation database, which includes public and statutory bodies, developers, residents associations, community groups and local businesses;

• borough-wide community engagement meetings in September 2008. A total of 74 people attended these meetings. Feedback from the meetings is highlighted in section 4 of this report;

• Residents Area Forums: Chipping Barnet Residents Forum – 16th September 2008, Finchley and Golders Green Residents Forum – 17th September 2008, Hendon Residents Forum – 18th September 2008. These forums are open to all Barnet residents. Hard copies of the document, questionnaires and leaflets were available at each forum;

• Barnet Multi-Cultural Forum September 2008, organised by Just Space – London Civic Forum. A total of 21 people attended the event; and

• members of our Citizen’s Panel were invited to comment on the issues and options for Barnet over the next 15-20 years. A total of 320 members of the Panel made a total of 21,451 comments on the Issues and Options document. A summary is provided in Section 6 of this report.

1.1.4 As part of the Core Strategy production process and in order to promote wider ownership we have established a programme of continuous engagement with the Local Strategic Partnership. We provided presentations on the emerging LDF Core Strategy to the Executive of the Local Strategic Partnership in January 2008 and to Barnet Civic Network in April 2008.

November 2009Page 1


1.1.5 The Core Strategy issues were grouped into the following five themes :

• growing successfully; • delivering the infrastructure to accommodate growth and ensure

sustainable development; • meeting housing aspirations; • planning for vitality and viability of a network of suburban town

centres; and • planning, development and growth to be environmentally

sensitive. 1.1.6 A summary of the comments received on each of the issues raised in the

Core Strategy Issues and Options document together with our response is set out in Section 3 of this report.

1.1.7 The focus of the Core Strategy is on strategic issues. It sets out the overall planning vision and strategy for the borough. A large number of comments submitted were specific to sites or areas within the borough or related to non strategic issues. The Core Strategy is not intended to consider site specific issues. These issues are intended to be addressed by the Site Allocations document. Reference is made to the specific sites highlighted by respondents in Section 3.11 of this report. Next Steps for the Core Strategy The results of the Issues and Options consultation together with the emerging LDF evidence base and the results of the Sustainability Appraisal have been fed into the development of the Direction of Travel of the Core Strategy.

2 List of Respondents 2.1.1 The following organisations and individuals submitted written responses to the

Barnet Core Strategy Issues and Options.

A S Property Investment Ltd Access in Barnet Alex Geiger All Souls College Andrew and Carolyn Berkeley Ann Duarte Ann M Dresser Ann Pepper Asda Stores Ltd Barnet and District Athletic Club Barnet College Barnet Fed of Allotment and Horticultural Studies Barnet Refugee Forum Barnet Residents Association Beryl Hayes

BrentX/Cricklewood Development Partners British Library British Waterways Brook Farm Allotments and Horticultural Assoc Burnt Oak Traders Association Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment Carolyn Killen Cedric T S Isaac Charles Wicksteed Christine Reyland Cllr Duncan Macdonald Cllr John Hart Colin Darby Costco Wholesale UK Ltd

November 2009Page 2


Crewys Road Residents Assoc Danny Parnes David Constable David Howard Dennis Robb Derek Sagar Dominion Housing Group E G Willis East Finchley Allotments Elena and Peter Charlton Elena Choong Elizabeth Burling Enfield Council English Heritage Environment Agency F Soord Federations of Residents Associations in Barnet Fiona Henderson Fitzjohn Avenue Area Assoc

Friends of Windsor Open Space Friends of York Park

Friends, Families and Travellers Friern Village RA G and H Lazarus Garden and Plants Centre Developments Ltd Garden History Society Government Office for London H Martin H S A Raperport HADAS ( Hendon and District Archaeological Society) Hadley Residents Assoc Hana Kleiner Harry Levy Heather Siverns Helen Anderton Herts & Middx Wildlife Trust Irene Lee Isabelle Richard J B Galton Jeffrey and Fenella Young Jehovah’s Witnesses John Cox John Dix June Porges Karen and John Spector Katerina Fischel Kim and Chris Bryan Kim Mason King Sturge LLP Labour Group (Barnet) London Development Agency London Fire and Emergency Planning

Authority Linda A Dolata Linda Farley London Wildlife Trust Manjit K Arora and Mrs Maureen Arora Margaret West Medical Research Council Metropolitan Police Authority Michael Dawson Middlesex University Miss J M Canning Mobile Operators Association Mr D P McCarthy Mr Leslie Sussman Mr T A J Dennis Mr T Borrill Mrs A Roy Mrs D Miller Mrs D Visaria Mrs E K Brandenburger Mrs J Smith Mrs M Tonucci Mrs Mary Peters Mrs R Geiger Mrs S Jolly Mrs V Norris Ms S T Borel Nathalie Heyden National Grid Property Holdings Natural England NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit O M Gould Patricia Murphy Patty Brown Pocket Living Ltd R Bird Rahul Mody Robert Newton Robert Sacks S Davison Sainsbury's Supermarkets Sandra Soer Sheila Braggins St George Central London Susan and Derek McMaster Transport for London Thames Water Property Services The Barnet Society The Comer Group The Finchley Society The Highways Agency The Suburbs Foundation The Theatres Trust The Whetstone Society

November 2009Page 3

Issues and Options Report Totteridge Resident's Association W Chard

November 2009Page 4


3 Summary of comments received and

our response 3.1 Summary 3.1.1 The Issues and Options document generated over 23,500 comments from a

total of 462 respondents. Comments were submitted via the following channels:

• the Citizens Panel – 320 respondents and 21,451 comments.

• the Issues and Options Questionnaire – 142 respondents and 2,216 comments.

• the Issues and Options Document – Written Responses (does not include Questionnaire or Citizen’s Panel Responses) – 44 respondents.

• petition (two petitions were submitted on Save our Suburbs (SOS) and Three Strands) - 56 respondents.

• in total 950 individual comments were received – this figure excludes questionnaire responses, the Citizen’s Panel responses, SOS and Three Strands petition.

3.2 General Comments and Opening Sections of Issues and Options 3.2.1 In total 90 individual comments were submitted a summary of which is set out

below.

3.2.2 The Government Office for London (GOL) submitted a number of comments on the Issues and Options paper. They stated that:

• The document is well written and readable providing sufficient explanation of what this consultation is about and the role and scope of the Core Strategy in the LDF process. It relates well to and is founded on other Barnet strategies, including the Three Strands Approach.

• The informative profile of Barnet provides a sense of place. Relevant challenges and issues are raised and drivers for change identified. The inclusion of high quality supporting illustrative material is important to aid the reader’s understanding of the Council’s Strategy.

• The Core Objectives, whilst all valid, are often generic. They would benefit from being made more locally distinctive by the inclusion where possible of Barnet specific references or examples related to the issues Barnet faces over the plan period.

• Many of the questions asked on the options are pertinent ones – the answers to many of which will of course depend on what the underpinning evidence shows. If a policy course is advocated that varies from the extant London

November 2009Page 5


Plan and / or national policy it is very important that supporting evidence justifies this approach.

• It is noted that the document appears to be anticipating the likely direction of travel outlined by the new Mayor of London and the policy changes that he intends to make to the London Plan. The timing of the progress made on the respective documents will be crucial as to how far and the manner in which Barnet are able to go in reflecting emerging London Plan policy.

• It is evident that careful consideration is being given to the infrastructure projects which will be required to support the level of growth anticipated during the plan period. The Barnet Financing Plan and other financial mechanisms including the Community Infrastructure Levy are likely to be central to ensure social and physical infrastructure is delivered. As with the Mill Hill East and Colindale Area Action Plans it will be necessary to demonstrate similar engagement and commitment of key stakeholders for other parts of the Borough in order realise delivery ambitions.

• Two important matters set out in PPS12 that you will wish to have careful regard to in developing your Core Strategy are the test of "reasonable prospect of provision" and the need to have in built flexibility in order to be able to respond to changing circumstances over the lifetime of the plan.

GOL also commented on • The vision for Core Strategy only looks ahead to 2016; PPS12 advises that

the minimum time horizon core strategies should be 15 years from the date of adoption.

• Some options appear to relate to more detailed matters that are unlikely to be appropriate for policies in the Core Strategy for example Option 3.16 and 3.17 relating to design and access statements and design guidance for house extensions.

• Map 2 – Barnet Strategic Developments whilst useful is difficult to decipher in black and white and therefore not as effective as a similar colour version one included in the Three Strands Approach publication.

• It is noted that the Council are considering changing their approach to affordable housing with the introduction of a flexible sliding scale. GOL are keen to discuss the Council's anticipated policy approach and also any implications arising in the light of the recent Blythe Valley judgement.

• It is noted that an option on identifying Brent Cross / Cricklewood as a new metropolitan town centre is raised. This is another area of the Core Strategy where GOL would like to be closely involved as the Council’s thinking on this matter evolves.

3.2.3 Summary of comments

• Several respondents raised concerns about the consultation on Issues and Options, in particular the lack of publicity. Although New Barnet is highlighted as a priority town centre none of the public meetings were held in New Barnet.

• The failure to publish the outputs of the LDF workshops in 2007 and the origins of the vision for the Core Strategy was highlighted. One respondent

November 2009Page 6


questioned the authority of the LDF Members Steering Group to endorse the Core Strategy Issues and Options objectives.

• Several respondents considered the process to be unduly complicated with many of the choices promoted being meaningless. It was therefore difficult to understand. There is a need for a more logical and rational way of eliciting comments rather than pre-determined answers. Several respondents considered that there was insufficient explanation for the five themes. Concerns were expressed about inevitability of growth and that choices were restricted to how it will occur. To blindly continue growth, knowing that it is not sustainable in terms of congestion, pollution and infrastructure is wrong.

• A question was asked about consideration of alternative spatial strategies to the Three Strands Approach. Several respondents referred to original Three Strands Approach as approved by Cabinet in November 2004 as being the appropriate key driver for the Core Strategy. One respondent proposed their own Three Strands themes

o Protecting Green Belt, open spaces and conservation areas together with back gardens

o Enhancing the suburbs by ensuring that infill development is sustainable and in keeping with its locality

o Growth will include regeneration opportunities, development intensification in appropriate town centres subject to provision of infrastructure

• Several respondents raised concerns about the LDF evidence base and their involvement in its preparation. Evidence should be highlighted as an Appendix. Concerns were also expressed about the comprehensiveness of evidence at the Issues and Options stage particularly on issues around health, heritage, open space and the knowledge economy.

• Several respondents considered that the document should provide more information on the programme of regeneration in Barnet

• One respondent commented that the imperatives of outside bodies such as the Primary Care Trust are allowed to override sensible and logical planning policies because those bodies have central government or financial clout.

• One respondent highlighted that PPS 12 states that where the Core Strategy allocates strategic sites they must include a 'submission proposals map'. Given that Brent Cross -Cricklewood is to be allocated a strategic site a proposals map will need to be prepared.

• Several respondents raised omissions from the Core Strategy including : air quality; allotments; private gardens, heritage; historic parks, noise; play space; hedgerows and trees; sports facilities and waterways.

November 2009Page 7


3.2.4 Our Response

3.2.5 Meetings were held throughout Barnet in September 2008 as part of the consultation. Publicity generated 23,000 comments from 462 people. We consider this a good response. New Barnet is one of six priority town centres. Each one of these will be subject to a town centre development framework upon which there will be further opportunities for engagement.

3.2.6 The outputs of the 2007 LDF workshops are published at Section 5 of this report. The cross-party LDF Members Steering Group provides valuable input to the production of the Core Strategy. Cross-party engagement with lead members is encouraged as part of the LDF frontloading process.

3.2.7 We do recognise that the change over to the new LDF system and consultation on Issues and Options has proved complicated. We are required to set out reasonable options on where, when and how Barnet will change. These options include housing growth. The five themes provide a useful framework for the 80 options that comprised Issues and Options. We have not taken these themes forward in the Direction of Travel.

3.2.8 The Three Strands of Protection, Enhancement and Growth have remained constant since 2004 and provide the place making strategy for Barnet as expressed in our priority policy CS 1. An alternative spatial strategy to Three Strands allowing growth to take place across all parts of Barnet was considered and rejected for the reasons set out in para 7.2.1 of the Direction of Travel document. The issues raised in the alternative Three Strands are covered in the Direction of Travel.

3.2.9 The LDF evidence base will continue to emerge and the Core Strategy will continue to be informed by it. The Core Strategy must be founded on a robust and credible evidence base. It is not realistic to have all evidence completed at Issues and Options stage as it should be as up-to-date as is practicable. It should also be proportionate to the job being undertaken by the Core Strategy.

3.2.10 The Direction of Travel as illustrated by the Key Diagram provides a picture of regeneration programmes in Barnet.

3.2.11 The soundness of the Core Strategy and other DPDs such as Site Allocations will be tested at the Examination in Public. The 'imperatives of outside bodies' have to be justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

3.2.12 A final LDF Proposals Map will be produced when the LDF is completed. Brent Cross - Cricklewood is identified in the Key Diagram. The Direction of Travel makes clear the relationship between the Core Strategy and the planning framework for Brent Cross - Cricklewood.

3.2.13 Many of the omissions highlighted are now referred to in the Core Strategy - Direction of Travel.

November 2009Page 8


3.3 Vision and Objectives 3.3.1 In total 49 individual comments were submitted a summary of which is set out

below.

• Several respondents proposed rewording of the objectives for climate change, community safety, movement, health and well being, and heritage. There was support for a more cross-cutting approach for the objectives using health, heritage and open spaces.

• The need to address climate change adaptation as well as mitigation was highlighted.

• Respondents highlighted that the challenge on air quality management was not reflected in the vision and objectives and did not connect with reducing traffic growth.

• One respondent raised the issue of measuring LDF delivery and the need for financial, qualitative and quantitative targets.

3.3.2 Our Response 3.3.3 The objectives have been redrafted as part of the Direction of Travel in order

to focus on the key issues to be addressed by the Core Strategy. 3.3.4 Ensuring the efficient use of resources is seen as the way to minimise our

contribution to climate change. 3.3.5 The issue of air quality is recognised in the Direction of Travel as having an

impact on Barnet's attractiveness as a place to live. Policy CS 8 seeks to reduce the environmental impact of travel.

3.3.6 Para 20.10 of the Direction of Travel sets out how the performance of the

Core Strategy will be measured.

3.4 Strategic Background 3.4.1 In total 37 individual comments were submitted a summary of which is set out

below. 3.10.1 Responses

• Several respondents raised the issue of Barnet as a large borough not being a truly distinctive place. Many considered it to be a collection of communities clustered around town centres of varying size and having their own strengths and weaknesses. This diversity is a key feature of the Borough that needs to be acknowledged in preparing a plan for its future development.

• Concern was expressed about top-down solutions that may apply to one area but do genuine damage to another. Need for local solutions that enable the entire town centres to thrive with their own individual character.

• Respondents considered that the protection and enhancement of Barnet’s suburbs, town centres and historic areas has not been given prominence in the development of options.

November 2009Page 9


3.10.2 Our Response

3.10.3 Barnet is considered distinctive as a place because of its constituent parts. This provides the opening for the supporting text for Policy CS 3 - Protecting and Enhancing Barnet's Character. The early findings of the Characterisation Study supports this view and we seek to develop policy that protects and enhances Barnet's distinctiveness.

3.10.4 We are producing a series of town centre frameworks for the six largest centres. The success of these centres will depend on them retaining their individual character.

3.10.5 We consider that the Direction of Travel document does provide prominence for our suburbs, town centres and historic areas as place that we should protect and enhance. Two policies specifically highlight protection and enhancement of places that contribute to Barnet's distinctiveness.

3.5 Profile of Barnet 3.5.1 Barnet the People, the Place

In total 45 individual comments were submitted a summary of which is set out below.

3.5.2 Responses

• One respondent highlighted the need to include health challenges facing the borough such as obesity and access to healthcare. Need to refer to key health conditions, the ageing population and notable inequalities (’hotspots’) in terms of ill health and access to health services.

• One respondent questioned the need to plan for communities that if by definition are diverse therefore have no common needs.

• Several respondents highlighted the need to focus on high car use, low orbital public transport, ways to increase walking and cycling as a means of transport together with challenges relating to air quality and global climate change in the context of their relationship to major road corridors.

3.5.3 Our Response

3.5.4 Health inequalities including coronary heart disease, cancer and respiratory problems are highlighted in the Direction of Travel. We highlight the 'finding the 5,000' project which seeks to identify those residents most at risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes.

3.5.5 Barnet's population is changing, becoming younger and more diverse. Diversity does not imply that expectations of housing, transport, community facilities and town centres are not shared.

November 2009Page 10


3.5.6 Policy CS 8 on Providing Integrated and Efficient Travel seeks to reduce the environmental impact of travel by promoting transport choice as well as influencing behaviour, encouraging a reduction in travel by car.

3.6 Theme 1: Growing Successfully 75 individual comments were submitted with respect to Theme 1.

3.6.1 Issue 1 – Growing Successfully – City Suburb

In total 8 individual comments were submitted on this section. 3.6.2 Responses

• One respondent highlighted the absence of options on ensuring that the quality of life enjoyed in the city suburb is maintained and enhanced.

• It was highlighted that parts of Barnet are former towns in Hertfordshire and Middlesex and therefore not city suburbs. Clarification was requested on the term ‘city-suburb’

3.6.3 Our Response

3.6.4 The Three Strands Approach was developed to help maintain and enhance the quality of life that attracts people to live in Barnet. Three Strands forms the cornerstone of the Core Strategy.

3.6.5 Barnet is a suburban borough that forms part of a successful global city. Our suburban town centres are the economic, civic, retail, leisure and transport hubs of Barnet and contribute significantly to the economic prosperity of Outer London as a whole.

3.6.6 Issue 1a - Business Opportunities and Economic Prosperity

Options 1.01 Should we protect existing employment sites from change of use, for

example, to residential development? 1.02 Should we allow the redevelopment of employment sites for mixed use

development? 1.03 Should we allow the redevelopment of existing employment sites where there

is no proven need for commercial uses?

In total 50 individual comments were received. 3.6.7 Responses

• Several respondents sought a balanced approach to the delivery of jobs and housing and highlighted need for flexibility with employment sites. It was also highlighted that mixed uses should include high quality employment opportunities. The positive impact of mixed uses on reducing commuter distances and the need to travel to work was recognised.



• Need for realism in determining the future of employment sites was raised. It was stated that not all employment sites are suitable for other commercial uses. The safeguarding of sites could benefit local businesses including homeworkers by providing them with the opportunity to grow and expand the knowledge economy. Need to promote incubator units and new business support schemes for small enterprises were highlighted. Support for locating small businesses in accessible town centres in order to give them freedom to work 24/7 without impacting adversely on residential neighbourhoods.

• There was support to utilise protected employment sites with home working hubs, where workers can network and use facilities which would otherwise be beyond their resources.

• One respondent highlighted that the inability for a business to present an offer of units that the market desires is not sufficient reason for change of use. protect employment land and support it’s regeneration into the types needed for Barnet’s knowledge economy and home businesses.

• There were mixed views on mixed use development. Some highlighted that it reduced employment land and increased potential impacts on residential amenity from employment uses. Others considered that a mixed use development can improve a scheme's viability as sustainable residential development can make the best economic re-use of a site.

• Respondents highlighted the positive contribution of Middlesex University as a major direct employer and generator of income and additional jobs into the local economy. Although there is special mention of the knowledge economy, other sectors including retail, service and health play an important role as well.

3.6.8 Our Response

3.6.9 Evidence from the Employment Land Review highlights the local demand for smaller business premises and the importance of safeguarding existing employment locations. We aim to support businesses, with more flexible and affordable workspace in more accessible locations such as town centres.

3.6.10 The option to allow redevelopment of employment sites for mixed uses has been rejected as it would reduce supply of accommodation and make workspaces more unaffordable. Mixed use development works best in town centres where there is already good access to services.

3.6.11 It is recognised that supporting business is not just about premises. The Core Strategy highlights partnership working with education providers on knowledge transfer as well as developing the skills required for a strong and prosperous Barnet.

3.6.12 The role of Middlesex University in supporting local businesses is highlighted in the Direction of Travel. The knowledge economy remains important to a strong and prosperous Barnet as do the retail, service and health sectors.

3.6.13 Issue 1b – Improving the skills of local residents and ensuring local economic prosperity

Options



1.04 Should the council identify locations for further and higher education facilities? 1.05 Should the council encourage the expansion of existing further and higher

education facilities? 1.06 Should the council seek financial contributions from major developments for training?

In total 17 individual comments were submitted.

3.6.14 Responses

• Higher education facilities should be encouraged in or around town centres. There is also a need to take account of impact of student population on family residential areas.

• One respondent highlighted that the source of much of Barnet’s economic activity is generated by those who live here but work elsewhere. Many of these commuters are high earners.

• The lack of suitable, good quality, culturally sensitive and affordable childcare as a key barrier for women to compete in the London labour market.

• The University can expand on its role in skills development and life-long learning in Barnet and further initiatives such as Knowledge Transfer Partnerships are developed in Barnet.

3.6.15 Our Response

3.6.16 The option to identify specific locations for further and higher education providers has not been pursued. Further expansion plans can be addressed through the Site Allocations DPD.

3.6.17 The suburbs economic contribution to London’s success is highlighted in the Direction of Travel as is the role of town Barnet’s town centres and a new economic hub at Brent Cross-Cricklewood.

3.6.18 One of the focuses of the Skills Development Group is to improve opportunities for those at risk of being excluded from the labour market.

3.6.19 The role of Middlesex University in supporting local businesses is highlighted in the Direction of Travel.

3.7 Theme 2: Delivering the infrastructure to accommodate growth and ensure sustainable development In total 221 individual comments were submitted regarding Theme 2.

3.7.1 Issue 2a – Balancing Barnet’s changing travel needs

Options 2.01 Should the car remain as an important mode of transport in the borough?



2.02 Should we encourage changes in car use, for example the use of hybrid/electric vehicles and car pooling as part of Green Travel Plans?

2.03 Should transport capacity in the borough be increased, for example on orbital and east / west routes?

2.04 Should we encourage people to use public transport, for example by limiting parking provision?

2.05 Should parking be increased, for example in town centres to help shoppers? 2.06 Should we invest in roads? Should we encourage alternative modes of transport by reallocating road

space, for example for bus lanes? 2.07 What variety of modes of transport should we promote to encourage

sustainable movement? 2.08 Should we increase road capacity to reduce traffic congestion? 2.09 How can we make moving around the borough easier?

In total 147 individual comments were submitted. 3.7.2 Responses

• Several respondents sought to reduce traffic levels through improving conditions for walking and cycling and improving public transport and controlling car parking. This included timely delivery of infrastructure serving orbital rather than radial routes, especially into town centres and along E-W routes.

• Several respondents considered that sustainable travel measures should be adopted before localised increases in road capacity. Such increases were considered to have uncertain benefits.

• Several respondents highlighted the need for research and modelling to support movement options.

• Several respondents referred to the need for behaviour change on car usage and highlighted the importance of reliability, affordability and choice to reduce reliance on use of the private car. It was considered that cars (or other personal transport) will be sustainable in a matter of years. In low density suburbs, personal transportation is the only sustainable method of movement.

• Several respondents were concerned about car parking and the need to address balance between high short-stay parking charges and lower tariffs for all day parking. Respondents considered that there should be more opportunities for 'park and ride' and better interchanges between bus and train, or between car and train.

• Several respondents recognised the need to utilise road space more effectively in terms of buses and car parking controls. A need for better co-ordination of bus routes and expansion into areas not served was highlighted. Several considered that service frequency should be increased at peak hours to encourage use of public transport



• Several respondents highlighted the need to address traffic congestion and pollution problems in areas cited for major redevelopment (M1, A1, A41 and A406 corridors).

• Respondents highlighted light-rail proposals to connect the three main development sites in Barnet (Brent Cross, Colindale and Mill Hill East) and join together all the radial rail and Underground lines in the area.

3.7.3 Our Response

3.7.4 The Infrastructure Delivery Plan will set out transport proposals that can be funded and are deliverable. This will include proposals for improving the strategic road network especially the A406 as well as public transport improvements on the A5 corridor.

3.7.5 The Direction of Travel seeks to promote transport choice. This includes a review of Barnet's bus network ensuring services become more responsive to demand. Also ensuring that more orbital routes are established and that routes help to connect the major town centres.

3.7.6 The Direction of Travel recognises that many residents will continue to use the car for getting around. The Core Strategy highlights that our approach to parking provision is one of restraint with sensitivity to local circumstances and this includes the major town centres where new frameworks are emerging. Short trip parking is highlighted in Policy CS 4 as a means of supporting town centre retail uses.

3.7.7 The private car is recognised as a popular and reliable form of transport. The Core Strategy therefore promotes low emission vehicles. It also encourages people to use their cars less. By promoting e-infrastructure in new development to enable greater levels of 'home-working' it is considered that such provision can influence behaviour change and reduce the need to travel.

3.7.8 The need for further research on transport modelling and identification of proposals for the Infrastructure Delivery Plan is highlighted in the Direction of Travel.

3.7.9 Increases in road capacity can improve conditions for users of such space and can help reduce congestion.

3.7.10 An option on restricting ability to travel in ways that makes non public transport usage less attractive was rejected. This option narrowed choice and discouraged cycling and walking as well as the private car. The Core Strategy aims to make cycling and walking a more attractive option to the car.

3.7.11 Issue 2b – Providing community facilities for sustainable communities

Options



2.10 Should the council encourage the joint use of new and existing community facilities? 2.11 Should the council protect existing community facilities from development? Should the council ensure re-provision of community facilities in cases where they are displaced by development? 2.12 Should community facilities only be allowed where they are accessible by

public transport and where parking is regulated? 2.13 Should the council use planning to promote healthy lifestyles, for example,

through access to community facilities, and open space? 2.14 Should the council require greater contributions towards special needs

housing and life time homes to accommodate older and disabled residents?

In total 59 individual comments were submitted. 3.7.12 Responses

• There is a consensus on the need for protection of existing facilities. Several respondents highlighted that if a facility is underused increased use should be promoted.

• There is a consensus that the need for meeting places is for the community at large and is wider than religious groups.

• NHS Barnet highlighted the need to reflect the hub and spoke model identified in the Primary Care Strategy and detail how planned primary care developments relate to the Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Clinical Strategy and the Healthcare for London proposals. It was considered that instead of focusing on health facilities there needs to be clearer links between health conditions and planning interventions. This would enable spatial planning to address unhealthy lifestyles and deliver healthier communities.

• Several respondents highlighted the need for new public parks using Green Belt / MOL land.

• Several respondents highlighted that open spaces especially allotments were

a means by which healthy outdoor activities are encouraged. In order to spatially plan for healthier lifestyles there should be provision and improvement of the open space network .This would help to ensure that areas of deficiency in provision would be redressed. One respondent considered that Barnet should develop public sports and leisure facilities in line with the Sport England Sports Facility calculator.

• Several respondents highlighted the need for more focus on joint use of community facilities so as to maximise public investments. Shared local facilities increase the sense of community and promote civic awareness. There was support for evening activities at town centre facilities when parking restrictions are lifted.

3.7.13 Our Response

3.7.14 The option on protecting facilities only when fully utilised has not been taken forward by the Direction of Travel. It is recognised that facilities that are not



fully utilised may still be popular as flexible venues that are capable of meeting changing demands in a changing borough.

3.7.15 Health and well being is an issue that merits a policy of its own in the Core Strategy. The Direction of Travel highlights support for the plans of NHS Barnet to deliver modern primary care. As well as addressing clinical care it seeks to address health inequalities.

3.7.16 The assessment of open space, sports and recreational facilities does highlight deficiencies as an important part of evidence. Identifying deficiencies informs our understanding of existing provision but does not complete the picture. The assessment has also highlighted issues of quality and accessibility.

3.7.17 The Direction of Travel promotes the greater integration of community facilities such as schools and primary care centres. It highlights that the community should have greater access to multi purpose hubs providing a range of services. Greater access should include evening openings. As part of our emerging LDF evidence base we are developing a firmer understanding of supply and demand for community space by all community groups.

3.7.18 Although a third of the borough is Green Belt / MOL most of it is located in the north of Barnet. It is therefore away from the main centres of population. It also lacks good public transport accessibility.

3.7.19 The Core Strategy Implementation Framework

In total 15 individual comments were submitted with respect to this particular issue, a summary of which is set out below.

3.7.20 Responses

• One respondent considers that the Implementation Framework should also identify clear sources of funding for public transport improvements to ensure that proposals are deliverable. Barnet should not rely on developer funding alone for all transport improvements and therefore additional sources of funding should be identified within the Strategy.

• NHS Barnet highlighted that the delivery strategy of the core strategy should be aligned with the implementation of the primary care strategy (and acute strategy and reconfiguration of mental health services) to ensure that new or enhanced health services are provided in the right place at the right time.

• One respondent referred to the council’s ‘Investing in a First Class City Suburb’, as a central document to the Issues and Options.

• One respondent highlighted that infrastructure will have to be in place in advance of the major developments in the pipeline for Barnet over the next fifteen years, and this should be a pre-condition to the approval of major new developments. The Implementation Framework must appear before the Preferred Options.



3.7.21 Our Response

3.7.22 The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) is being produced in order to demonstrate that the Core Strategy is deliverable. It sets out where, when, by what means (ie funding) and by whom will infrastructure be delivered. It is the most important part of the LDF evidence and requires the input of strategic partners such as NHS Barnet and Transport for London. The IDP is a work in progress which will reflect ‘Investing in a First Class City Suburb’. It will be scrutinised at Examination in Public. Having it finalised at Direction of Travel stage is not realistic.

3.8 Theme 3: Meeting Housing Aspirations In total 213 individual comments were submitted regarding Theme 3.

3.8.1 Issue 3a – The number and distribution of new housing development

Options 3.01 Should we focus major housing and economic growth on the west side of the

borough in the London – Luton – Bedford corridor, where opportunity is greatest?

3.02 Should the focus of housing development be in the town centres and arterial routes (e.g. A5) with good public transport links?

3.03 Should growth be allowed to take place across all parts of the borough? 3.04 Should the focus of housing growth and development be targeted to protect

the high quality suburbs? 3.05 Should we only consider housing development where there are good public

transport links or it can be made accessible?

In total 52 individual comments were submitted with respect to this issue. 3.8.2 Responses

• Several respondents considered that although one third of Barnet is Green Belt it does not justify overcrowded housing development in another part of the Borough. There was wide concern about the amount of flatted development in Barnet and the need for restrictions on the numbers / proportions being built. It was considered that the flats being built were too small. Several respondents considered that terraced houses should be promoted as an alternative to flats and that flats should only be allowed on town centre sites or on main roads where families do not want to live.

• Several respondents considered that if the borough is to accept the growth targets, then all areas of the borough must accept some share in the delivery of those targets, including conservation areas. Housing growth and strategic development across the borough need not adversely impact the high quality suburbs. It was considered that all the suburbs are worthy of protection not just the high quality ones.

• Several respondents welcomed the prioritisation to strategically locate housing and economic growth in the London-Luton-Bedford coordination



corridor as long as it did not prejudice other such locations particularly on the eastern side of the borough that can deliver policy objectives in the Core Strategy and London Plan. It was recognised that such focus has the potential to reduce the pressure, particularly from windfall developments, to build in the high quality suburbs.

• There was support for large developments having good public transport access but small developments acceptable on other grounds should not be ruled out on this ground alone.

• Several respondents highlighted the opportunity to remove high-rise developments, in particular failed housing estates, inappropriately placed in suburban locations.

3.8.3 Our Response

3.8.4 The option to spread growth across the Borough has not been pursued in the Core Strategy. Unplanned growth in response to market pressures would entail piecemeal development in low density suburbs and on greenfield land. The opportunity to focus development on regenerating previously developed land in the west would be missed. The concentration of growth in accessible locations where there are opportunities for redevelopment is considered the most appropriate and sustainable strategy.

3.8.5 Our approach to density is to optimise rather than merely maximise. Density should not drive development on its own and it should reflect local context and public transport accessibility. The Core Strategy encourages higher densities in places that are capable of sustaining it and where such proposals will not detract from the dominant character. Such locations are identified in the Key Diagram.

3.8.6 The Core Strategy highlights the regeneration of the priority estates to meet Decent Homes and deliver a greater range and variety of accommodation.

3.8.7 Issue 3b – Sustainable design principles

Options 3.06 Should we enhance the borough’s high quality suburbs and historic areas and

protect them from intensive development and infill? 3.07 Should we expect different standards of design in different parts of the

borough? 3.08 Should high quality design be sought everywhere? 3.09 Should we provide more detailed guidance to developers and residents on

urban design throughout the borough? 3.10 Should we provide more detailed guidance to developers in specific

development locations?




• Several respondents opposed different standards of design in different parts of the borough and considered that high quality design should be sought borough wide. More detailed guidance would be welcomed but should not stifle the individual response to the characteristics of a site, design expression or the particular merits of a site

• Several respondents considered that the emphasis should be in protecting the suburbs not just the high quality ones. It was also considered that enhancing the suburbs and accommodating residential development are not conflicting objectives.

• It was considered that locations accessible by public transport have a more contemporary design and construction approach whereas in lower density areas and heritage locations a more traditional approach could be used. In all locations a high quality design approach should always be sought

• One respondent highlighted that no reference is made to the extent of coverage or number of heritage assets in the Borough. No mention is made of historic spaces as important contributors to the character and distinctiveness of Barnet.

3.8.9 Our Response

3.8.10 We commissioned the Characterisation Study to provide a picture of the residential suburbs and examine those residential streets where suburban uniformity persists. The Study provided a boroughwide focus on residential streets. Only through this assessment can we identify those suburban places that should be safeguarded and those that are worthy of enhancement.

3.8.11 A key component of the Characterisation Study has been to set out Barnet's historic development and its legacy. This helps inform the context.

3.8.12 Policy CS 3 on protecting and enhancing Barnet's character does highlight that we will produce detailed design guidelines for those areas of the borough that are suitable for further flatted development. It further indicates that the Development Management Policies DPD will provide policies for six residential typologies (linear rural, suburban periphery, suburban, suburban terrace, urban terrace and flats) in order to clarify the key considerations that new design should adhere to. It also sets the framework under which more detailed design guidance can be produced.

3.8.13 Issue 3c – Low density suburbs

Options 3.11 Should we continue our existing approach to protecting and enhancing the

suburbs? 3.12 Should we be more specific about the character of the suburbs that we

respect and enrich? 3.13 Should the Core Strategy resist the loss of gardens in lower density suburbs? 3.14 Should we protect large properties as family houses with gardens to provide a

mix of sizes and to preserve the character of an area?



3.15 Should we allow conversions into smaller units where this helps preserve the character of a former family house?

3.16 Should Design and Access Statements, submitted with planning applications set out how they will respect and contribute to local character, distinctiveness and sustainability targets?

3.17 Should we review design guidance for extensions to existing housing to reflect community and cultural needs of our population?


• Several respondents highlighted the need to understand and protect 20th century urban landscapes such as council estates and 1930s suburbs. One respondent highlighted the need for a programme of character appraisal of all the suburbs which would make it clear where flat development and conversions will be resisted

• Several respondents recognised the importance of protecting the suburban character of the Borough and considered that, in areas of good public transport accessibility with good services, higher density development may be appropriate and necessary to meet housing requirements and protect greenfield sites elsewhere in the Borough

• It was considered that Barnet is all suburb and not urban. Houses that are structurally sound even though they may not fully meet current needs should be protected from demolition as adaptation/modification would be a better use of resources. Several respondents objected to conversions even though it may help preserve the character of a former family house. There was also support for re-conversion of flats to single family houses.

• Several respondents considered that new flats and conversion should be resisted in streets characterised by detached and semi-detached family houses. New development should meet the highest levels of sustainable design and construction and be adaptable to future needs as well as ensure that it ‘fits in’ to the existing character of the area.

• One respondent highlighted that any decisions on protection of large family properties or allowing them to be subdivided should be considered in respect of addressing borough and regional levels of housing needs

• One respondent considered that the Core Strategy should set out density ranges for the various settings across the borough paying attention to the strategic guidance in the London Plan but using the power granted in PPS3

3.8.15 Our Response

3.8.16 It is generally considered that design issues are better addressed through the Development Management Policies DPD. However Policy CS 3 on protecting and enhancing Barnet's character does highlight that we will produce detailed design guidelines for those areas of the borough that are suitable for further flatted development as well as those that have a dominant residential character that has been undermined by inappropriate flatted development. It further indicates that the Development Management Policies DPD will provide policies for six residential typologies (linear rural, suburban periphery,



suburban, suburban terrace, urban terrace and flats) in order to clarify the key considerations that new design should adhere to. It also sets the framework under which more detailed design guidance can be produced.

3.8.17 The Core Strategy does not set density ranges but does refer to the density matrix in the London Plan. This provides the context for our strategic approach on development.

3.8.18 We await the results of the SHMA to provide an up to date picture of housing supply and demand in Barnet. The SHMA will provide evidence on the size of homes required in Barnet to address housing need.

3.8.19 Issue 3d – Meeting the housing needs of the diverse communities in Barnet

Options 3.18 Should we define a preferred mix of dwelling sizes and types of housing, with

a significant element of family housing unless the developer can demonstrate a demand for smaller homes?

3.19 How important is it to meet housing need? 3.20 Should the council seek a mix of affordable housing tenures, from rental to full

home ownership? 3.21 Should the council adopt the latest London Plan tenure mix of low cost home

ownership, intermediate and rented housing? 3.22 Given the higher density planned growth areas should we prioritise new

family-sized homes elsewhere in the borough? 3.23 Should we expect smaller homes throughout Barnet? 3.24 Should we expect smaller homes in specific locations only where there is

higher density development? 3.25 Should we adopt a policy linking housing targets to a minimum floor space

requirement per unit to ensure high standards of internal space? 3.26 Should the Core Strategy only support specialist residential care homes in

those parts of the Borough where there is a clear demonstrable evidence of local need?


• Several respondents supported protection of family houses from conversion or re-development because they are out of character and involve loss of gardens.

• One respondent considered that policy should reflect the nature of the site, its surroundings and location on terms of identifying suitable dwelling sizes and types rather than prescribing specific dwelling sizes and types

• While one respondent considered that new flatted developments are inflexible to future need another highlighted the need for smaller starter units as they are more affordable to first time buyers. If houses are not provided at the



prescribed rate then it is likely to result in a shortfall of housing. This will inhibit choice of dwelling size and tenure and lead to a likely increase in prices

• One respondent considered that a flexible approach to the tenure mix of affordable housing should be adopted. The appropriate mix for a site should be based on individual site circumstances. It was also considered that the dwelling mix should be appropriate to the area and relate to housing need. The housing market’s neglect of small to medium affordable family homes was highlighted.

• Several respondents considered that fewer one and two bedroom flats should be built and more three and four bedroom family houses to meet the needs of local families

3.8.21 Our Response

3.8.22 We await the results of the SHMA to provide an up to date picture of housing need in Barnet. The SHMA will provide evidence on the size of homes required in Barnet to address housing need. The predecessor to the SHMA the 2006 Housing Needs Survey highlighted a shortage of affordable family accommodation.

3.8.23 Issue 3e – Affordable housing

Options 3.27 The Mayor of London may review the London wide target of 50% affordable

housing on 10 units or more. Should the council consider retaining or changing its existing approach to affordable housing?

Which option do you think is the most appropriate? 3.28 Retain the existing UDP policy of 50% affordable housing on sites of 10 or

more units. 3.29 Introduce a more flexible sliding scale with a lower contribution from smaller to

medium sized sites (10 to 24 units) and the current 50% on larger sites (25 or more).

This would mean, for a site of 50 units, 30% from the first 10 to 24 units (resulting in 6 affordable units) and 50% from the remaining 25 units (resulting in 12 units), a total of 18 units or 36%.

3.30 Should the 10 unit threshold be raised to 15 units in some cases? 3.31 Should we seek a greater contribution towards low cost home ownership and

affordable housing to support people’s housing choices from rental property to full owner occupation?

3.32 In what circumstances should we accept payment as opposed to on-site affordable housing in new residential development?

3.33 Where developments are particularly viable or greater public funding is available, should the council seek increased contributions to affordable housing, especially low cost housing?

3.34 Should we seek mixed and balanced communities by delivering affordable housing in areas where that tenure is under-represented?



3.35 Should we focus affordable housing where it is most viable and where a greater number of units are possible?


• Several respondents highlighted the need for a degree of flexibility in all aspects of affordable housing provision. The London Plan policy is not a blanket 50% policy on all sites but is a policy that 50% of housing provision Londonwide should be affordable. The maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing should be sought on individual sites of 10 or more units. Any decision to reduce this threshold should be justified with a strong evidence base. Several respondents considered that the 50% affordable homes target and the 10 unit threshold should not be abandoned or diluted.

• It was considered that homes should be provided where there is need throughout the borough, but empty homes should be renovated or redeveloped first before new builds put up.

• One respondent highlighted that off-site provision should only be considered where an alternative site or sites have been identified.

• One respondent considered that the dwelling mix should be appropriate to the area, relate to housing need and maximise the potential of the site.

• There was concern about the social rented elements of affordable housing. There is a need to take account of those who will never be able to buy their own home.

• One respondent considered that this debate is starting at the wrong end. There is a discussion on the percentage of housing that should be affordable but nothing on how much housing and what type we actually need.

• Respondents linked provision of affordable housing with needs of gypsies and travellers and students as well as increased opportunities for self build.

• One respondent considered that thresholds should remain at 10 units to ensure that affordable housing sites can come forward without competing with private developers who do not include any provision for affordable housing.

• Several respondents considered that high affordable housing targets undermine the ability to increase housing supply by increasing the cost of development. They supported a changed approach to affordable housing with a threshold raised to 15 units and the target reduced from 50%. Several considered that between 25 and 30% provides more opportunities.

• Several respondents supported payment in lieu where the financial viability of a scheme is compromised through provision of affordable housing on site.

3.8.25 Our Response

3.8.26 Although there was some support for the proposed flexible sliding scale where financial viability is not compromised it was considered that this option would complicate our approach to affordable housing. The Sustainability Appraisal highlighted that with the flexible sliding scale sites would be less likely to meet their potential and land would be used less efficiently.



3.8.27 The continuation of the existing approach on affordable housing with a 50% target and a threshold of 10 units has not been taken forward as an option. The approach that Barnet takes will be informed by local evidence including the SHMA and a boroughwide assessment of affordable housing viability.

3.8.28 The SHMA will provide a clearer picture of student accommodation in Barnet. The needs of travellers are highlighted in evidence for the London Plan. The promotion of self build accommodation is not considered a strategic issue that can be addressed by the Core Strategy.

3.8.29 The Core Strategy Direction of Travel does seek to widen housing choice and recognises that in meeting aspirations home ownership may not be suitable to all. It is therefore important to support a private and social rented sector.

3.9 Theme 4: Planning for vitality and viability of a network of suburban town centres In total 92 individual comments were submitted with respect to Theme 4.

3.9.1 Issue 4a – The role and function of suburban town centres in Barnet

Options 4.01 Should the Council identify Brent Cross/ Cricklewood as a new metropolitan

town centre, providing it is a mixed use and sustainable centre? Where should retail growth be accommodated? 4.02 Within a limited number of the largest town centres? 4.03 In any town centre? 4.04 At one or more of the borough’s existing out of centre retail parks? 4.05 Should we encourage retail expenditure within the borough? 4.06 In specific suburban town centres (Edgware, North Finchley, Finchley Church

End, Chipping Barnet, New Barnet and Whetstone) where development opportunities have been identified?

4.07 Should we seek to protect more local neighbourhood centres and parades of shops?

4.08 Should we provide more parking to support shopping in town centres given competition with other centres, and out of centre retail parks and shops?


• Respondents recognised that town centres and local shopping parades are key to reducing the need to travel and providing convenient facilities for those less able to travel longer distances.

• It was considered that changes of use away from A1 retail can be appropriate where it does not cause a wholesale change to the nature of the town centre. It was considered that greater emphasis should be placed on the mix of facilities in each shopping area with clear guidelines put in place to stop



specific types of outlet dominating the area. One respondent recognised that if small town centres are no longer viable or are shrinking changes of use from retail should be allowed. But where town centres are thriving, economic activity should be encouraged by a more permissive approach to parking.

• Several respondents considered that town centres especially Finchley Church End and North Finchley should continue to be the focus for development. Proposals which seek to rejuvenate and reinvigorate the locality should be supported.

• Respondents recognised that town centres should have a good mix of retail, commercial and leisure floor space and that they have to change to survive but positive efforts do need to be made to conserve those aspects that people value and use including their contribution to the suburban townscape. There needs to be an understanding of the historic development of town centres.

• Several respondents raised the importance of car parking in town centres. It was considered that town centre parking policy should be to maximise its availability for the good of the town centre itself - customers and traders. Short term free parking was proposed.

• The need to reconsider Town Centre designations was raised by several respondents particularly for New Barnet which is amongst the smallest District Centre in the London town centre network with only 15,091 sqm of retail space. One respondent highlighted the need to identify the Town Centre “envelope” for individual centres together with Town Centre Plans for the Borough.

• It was considered that there is potential to provide smaller retail units within larger residential and mixed use developments which will serve local needs provided it can be proven that there will be no impact on existing centres.

3.9.3 Our Response

3.9.4 A programme of town centre frameworks is underway for six large centres including Finchley Church End and North Finchley. These centres are considered to have potential for future growth. These detailed frameworks will pursue the individual planning objectives for each centre, help define their boundaries and bring out their distinctiveness. The Characterisation Study has improved our understanding of the historical development of Barnet and its town centres. The Core Strategy clearly sets out the reasons why town centres have been designated in the London Plan. Any change to the designation is an issue for the London Plan.

3.9.5 The Core Strategy supports short trip parking in town centres and recognise that there is no one size fits all solution. More detailed parking issues in the major town centres can be addressed through the town centre frameworks and Development Management Policies DPD.

3.9.6 We recognise that edge of town centre locations may no longer add to the retail offer and that considering town centres as retail focused places may impede other functions which could contribute to vitality and viability.



3.9.7 We have decided not to pursue the option on promoting substantial mixed use development in the smaller town centres. We consider that infill development in such locations is more reflective of scale.

3.9.8 We have not taken forward options allowing retail expenditure to go out of Barnet or to allow further growth of out of centre retail parks. The Sustainability Appraisal highlighted that these options would have negative economic, environmental and social impacts. In particular they would increase need to travel by car.

3.9.9 Issue 4b – Enabling change and enhancing town centres

Options 4.09 Should we discourage change of use in town centres (e.g. from shop to

house)? 4.10 Should we restrict loss of shopping uses only in the core of town centres and

be more flexible about change of use at the edges of high streets and secondary locations?

4.11 Should we allow a major expansion and concentration of shopping related development in the larger centres (Edgware, North Finchley, Finchley Church End, Chipping Barnet, New Barnet and Whetstone)?

4.12 Should we allow substantial mixed use development in all town centres 4.13 Should we be flexible and allow conversions? 4.14 Should we protect office and commercial uses from changing to residential

use? 4.15 Should we allow more mixed use conversions of town centre offices in

locations along high streets and main arterial routes?

In total 23 individual comments were submitted regarding this issue. 3.9.10 Responses

• Respondents recognised that town centres should have a good mix of housing, retail and leisure activities. They should be lived in and accessible with a good day and evening economy and good bus or rail connections. The planning process should be used to prevent the over-proliferation of any one type of business in a particular location and to maintain a variety of provision

• Consensus that high trip generating activities, such as offices, shopping centres and commercial developments should be located close to public transport interchanges or existing and accessible town centres.

• One respondent considered that mixed use development should be encouraged in town centres where lack of demand for sole office and retail use is evident

• Several respondents highlighted the link between expansion at Brent Cross with the anticipated decline of town centres.

• It was recognised that outside the core town centres other uses are often appropriate, and indeed traditional retail uses on the fringes should be



opposed. Several respondents considered that only those uses that support the shopping offer of town centres should be encouraged

• Respondents recognised that office uses bought jobs and footfall to the town centres but should not be encouraged on ground-floor frontages.

• Several respondents supported flats in certain town locations. This included above shops at the very edge of town centres as these can increase utilisation, avoid empty premises and help to increase the size of the “evening economy” as well as the conversion of shops in peripheral streets to residential space. Retirement housing was considered appropriate. There was less support for major housing expansion in town centres.

• Several respondents considered that each town centre needs to have a range of facilities in order to discourage private car journeys and encourage community spirit

3.9.11 Our Response

3.9.12 We recognise that edge of town centre locations may no longer add to the retail offer and that considering town centres as retail focused places may impede other functions such as housing and leisure and the establishment of a range of facilities which could contribute to vitality and viability.

3.9.13 We have not taken forward the option to allow substantial mixed use development in all 20 town centres. It was considered that such an option would have a negative impact. We consider that infill development in such locations is more reflective of scale.

3.9.14 We have not taken forward the option to allow further shopping and commercial town centre related development to meet projected demand in any town centre in Barnet.

3.9.15 Town centres have an important part to play in contributing to Barnet's housing supply and this is highlighted in the Core Strategy - Direction of Travel.

3.9.16 The Core Strategy seeks to promote all town centres and in this promotion we aim to highlight their distinctiveness. Brent Cross is Barnet’s largest shopping location and we are promoting it as a metropolitan town centre following its mixed use regeneration. Brent Cross has a sub-regional reach and it does not necessarily follow that its expansion alone will cause the decline of Barnet’s town centres. We aim to promote successful and vibrant centres throughout Barnet.

3.9.17 Issue 4c – Managing the evening and night time and entertainment economy

Options 4.16 Should we encourage more housing developments in town centres to

increase activity, for example, on the edge of centres or above shops? 4.17 Should we limit the evening and night-time economy to a few town centres

and if so, which centres, and why?



4.18 Should some town centres be designated as the focus of cultural development and leisure such as N12 North Finchley and Chipping Barnet?

In total 28 individual comments were received with respect to this issue. 3.9.18 Responses

• Respondents considered that town centres and market forces should develop their own distinctive blend of nightlife subject to controls over compatibility. The need for evidence to support the night time economy was highlighted. One respondent considered that the evening economy has to have a wider appeal especially to families and older people with a focus on theatres and cinemas. There was support for a range of complementary evening and night-time uses which would appeal to a wide range of ages and social groups. One respondent considered the options too prescriptive and opposed restricting the ‘evening economy’. Several respondents recognised that a strong cultural sector is key to the development of a vibrant town centre. Future leisure, arts and cultural facilities should be located within the town centres and be part of a successful mixed-use environment with visiting audiences enlivening the surrounding area in the evening, and providing regular custom for local bars and restaurants outside normal working and shopping hours

• There was a lack of support for housing in town centres if it was intended to increase evening activities and several respondents highlighted the incompatibility between residential uses and the evening economy.

• Several respondents recognised that complementary evening and night-time uses can make an important contribution to the character and function of a town centre, and should not therefore be focused in specific locations.

• Several respondents raised concerns about anti-social behaviour, crime and detrimental impact on residential amenity and considered that the evening economy should be confined to areas that can be well policed and accessed by public transport.

• The need to protect cultural venues was highlighted by several respondents. This should include performing arts facilities that stand-alone, are part of other facilities, or are contained within educational or community buildings

3.9.19 Our Response

3.9.20 We recognise that edge of town centre locations may no longer add to the retail offer and that considering town centres as retail focused places may impede other functions such as the evening economy which could contribute to vitality and viability.

3.9.21 We also recognise that with 20 town centres we cannot have a one size fits all solution for the evening economy. The town centre frameworks are the appropriate documents for addressing the issues raised by the evening economy.

3.9.22 North Finchley is highlighted as a hotspot for alcohol related disorder and the Core Strategy sets out in Policy CS 11 – Making Barnet a Safer Place that we promote safe and more secure town centre environments which encourage community ownership and generate pride.



3.9.23 We recognise that town centre cultural venues can help attract visitors particularly in the evening. Their value should be highlighted in the town centre frameworks currently in production.

3.10 Theme 5: Planning, development and growth to be environmentally sensitive

3.10.1 In total 73 individual comments were submitted with respect to Theme 5.

3.10.2 Issue 5a – Choosing sustainable locations for development

Options 5.01 Should we expect developers to provide evidence that the proposed location

is sustainable, or that it can be made so as a result of development, for example by improving access to public transport?

5.02 Should we expect development to contribute to increased biodiversity as well as protecting existing habitats and species?

In total 28 individual comments were submitted, a summary of which is set out below

3.10.3 Responses

• Respondents supported proposals which demonstrate their sustainability in terms of efficient use of land ease of access, and contribution to the regeneration of the community and locality should be supported.

• Several respondents highlighted the need to improve water quality and efficiency.

• The issue of air quality was raised by one respondent particularly as major regeneration was happening around areas close to the M1, A1, A5, A41 and A406.

• Some respondents considered that expecting development to contribute to increased bio-diversity would be unreasonable for all but the largest developments.

• Respondents considered that local communities should have access to an appropriate mix of green spaces including natural areas providing for a range of recreational needs, of at least 2 hectares of accessible natural green space per 1,000 residents.

• There was support for the option to expect development to contribute to increased biodiversity as well as protecting existing habitats and species, in line with PPS9. Respondents wanted the Core Strategy to map existing biodiversity resources, areas of deficiency and areas for enhancement. It was considered that improvements in the quality and extent of natural habitats and their supported species should be proposed and highlighted that the distribution of significant species and habitats may alter with climate change. One respondent highlighted the need to protect and promote geodiversity as two sites in Barnet have potential to be designated as being of local importance are identified in the report.



• It was highlighted that the sensitive adaptation of existing historic buildings can also help towards reducing energy costs and improving energy efficiency.

3.10.4 Our Response

3.10.5 We have not taken forward the option on climate change being the overriding principle for new development. The efficient use of natural resources and the efficient use of land are a central focus of the Core Strategy and a key consideration in government guidance (e.g. PPS1) and the London Plan. This approach had uncertain economic and social aspects in the Sustainability Appraisal. It is vital that our plans consider the full range of matters relevant to the borough to ensure a sustainable future. An approach that incorporates the efficient use of natural resources and land is considered more appropriate and more consistent with government and London-wide policy which take climate change into account alongside wider sustainability matters.

3.10.6 A Biodiversity Action Plan aimed at conserving and enhancing biological diversity is underway and will form part of the LDF evidence base. Its outputs will inform the production of the Development Management Policies DPD. We will examine the potential for designation of geodiversity sites in the Development Management Policies DPD.

3.10.7 The distribution of natural green space is highlighted in the Core Strategy - Direction of Travel. It is considered that the Development Management Policies DPD is the most appropriate part of the LDF for setting standards for open space.

3.10.8 The Core Strategy recognises the impact of air pollution on quality of life and highlights our requirements for Air Quality Assessments.

3.10.9 Issue 5b – Climate change and living within environmental limits

Options 5.03 Should we continue our existing approach to sustainable design and

construction in order to make Barnet one of London’s most sustainable and environmentally responsible city suburbs and boroughs?

5.04 How important is the consideration of climate change as a principle for new development in Barnet?

5.05 Should climate change be given equal weighting to other considerations, such as design?

5.06 Should the Core Strategy be primarily concerned with mitigating the forecast effects of climate change, for example, reducing the amount of biodegradable waste land filled?

5.07 Or should the core strategy prioritise the need to adapt to future impacts, for example incorporating high standards of water efficiency in new housing stock?

In total 45 individual responses were submitted regarding this issue, a summary of which is set out below



3.10.10 Responses

• Several respondents did not consider that climate change should be the overriding principle for new development and highlighted the impacts of any climate change requirements in terms of the viability of individual schemes. Several respondents considered that the primary focus should be on energy and resource efficiency rather than renewable energy.

• One respondent recognised that steps to embed issues of climate change and impact into the thinking of developers, applicants and planners would raise awareness and action on the part of the community in general to adopt a more sustainable way of life.

• One respondent highlighted that development should be located where Public Transport Accessibility Levels are high. Developments will be required to locate higher trip generating development near to major transport nodes, adopt a restraint based approach to car parking and include measures to actively promote the use of sustainable transport as well as any necessary service/capacity improvements.

• One respondent highlighted noise as an issue and considered that the Core Strategy should also include the intention to identify any areas of relative tranquillity, which Barnet intends to protect or enhance, in line with London Plan policy 4A.20

• One respondent highlighted the absence of a reference to the Sequential Test in PPS25 which aims to steer new development to areas at the lowest probability of flooding (Flood Zone 1). Several respondents highlighted the need to naturalise watercourses.

• Several respondents supported the strong emphasis placed on climate change and considered that climate change mitigation and adaptation are fully addressed in the Core Strategy. Respondents highlighted that the provision of green infrastructure can have benefits for climate change adaptation, such as flood protection and microclimate control.

3.10.11 Our Response

3.10.12 The efficient use of natural resources including water and energy and the efficient use of land are a central focus of the Core Strategy and a key consideration in government guidance (e.g. PPS1) and the London Plan.

3.10.13 The approach that climate change should be the overriding principle for new development generated uncertain economic and social aspects in the Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal. Addressing climate change is an issue on which a sensible balance has to be reached in order to address both short term and long term development needs. It is vital that our plans consider the full range of matters relevant to the borough to ensure a sustainable future. An approach that incorporates the efficient use of natural resources and land is considered more appropriate than having climate change as an overriding priority. It is also considered more consistent with government and London-wide policy which consider climate change alongside wider sustainability matters.



3.10.14 The Direction of Travel does emphasise the need for reducing carbon emissions in new and existing development. As part of our LDF evidence base we will utilise the Building Research Establishment Housing Stock Model for identifying poorly insulated properties.

3.10.15 A reference to the sequential test as required by PPS 25 has now been added. In addition to the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment we will be producing a Surface Water Management Plan which the Pitt Review recommended as the basis for managing all local flood risk. Understanding flood risk will set the context for opportunities for naturalisation of watercourses.

3.10.16 In terms of noise we recognise the impact on quality of life and the Direction of Travel Core Strategy highlights our requirement for Noise Impact Assessments.

3.11 Site Specific Comments 3.11.1 A number of responses to the Core Strategy Issues and Options document

were made with regard to specific sites or areas. The focus of the Core Strategy is on strategic issues. It sets out the overall planning vision and strategy for the borough. The Core Strategy is not intended to consider site specific issues. These issues are intended to be addressed by the Site Allocations document. Subject to respondents providing more details in response to our ‘call for sites’ the specific sites highlighted by respondents can be addressed by the Site Allocations document.

3.11.2 The following sites and areas were proposed:

• All Souls College – Edgware Estate – Development of green belt land for residential development.

• British Library - Newspaper Library – Colindale – Residential development

• New Barnet Gas Works – Development for mixed uses.

• Victoria Road, New Barnet – Preservation.

• North London Business Park - upgrade of employment site

• Land at Oakleigh Road South - Development for mixed uses.

• National Grid Property Holdings Ltd (NGPHL) operational depot to north of New Barnet Gas Works – Residential development.

• Former Parcelforce site, Edgware Road – Development for mixed uses.

• Copthall Sports Centre –improvement and expansion

• 27 Wood Street (the Old Register Office), 29A Wood Street and 31 Wood Street, High Barnet - arts and community uses

• former Burger King site on Apex Corner – hotel development

• National Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill - development

• Brent Reservoir – Sailing Club, Cool Oak Lane Bridge, and land to the north, known as ‘Area 10’. – Bring back into use



• Watling Boys Club – Redevelopment for community use



4 Community Meetings on Planning for

Future of Barnet 4.1 Planning for Future of Barnet – Community Meetings 4.1.1 A series of community meetings took place across the borough in September

2008 with objective of encouraging input to the Core Strategy Issues and Options. We wanted to hear views on the issues facing Barnet and the options that should be pursued to address them.

4.2 Meetings 4.2.1 The following meetings were held

• 8th September 2008 at the International Gospel Church, 102A Watling Avenue, Edgware

• 10th September 2008 at Avenue House, East End Road, Finchley • 11th September 2008 at the Cricklewood Trades Hall Club & Institute, 134

Cricklewood Lane, Cricklewood • 18th September 2008 at Barnet House, 1255 High Road, Whetstone • 22nd September 2008 at Freehold Community Centre, Alexandra Road

4.2.2 The five meetings took place across Barnet and were attended by 74 people.

4.3 List of Attendees 4.3.1 The following people attended the meetings

Andrew Brown Friends of Windsor Open Space Andy Karski Tibbalds Planning & Design Anthony Powell Metropolitan Police Ben Halevi Resident Catherine Appleby Resident Chetin Malyari Green Square Residents Association Cllr Claire Farrier Councillor Cllr Jim Tierney Councillor Cllr John Hart Councillor Daniel Hope Suburbs Foundation Daniel Rose GVA Grimley Danny Parnes Resident David Howard FARAB David Lee The Barnet Society David Lockett Chamber of Commerce Dennis Pepper LA21 Derek Sagar Hadley Residents Assoc Don Cooper District Archaeological Society Dr Julia Heinz Green Square Residents Association Dr M J Ford Mill Hill Preservation Society Dr Nathubhai Shah World Council of Jain Academies Emma Katsikides Resident



Finlay Kelly LDA Gardi Vaswani Agenda 21 Gerald Bates Group Representative Graham Jardin Green Square Residents Association Guy Christianson Resident Harry Levy Resident Heather Siverns BBC Media Centre Helen Lockham St Andrew's CE Primary School Headteacher Helen Massey Barnet Resident's Association Jim Nelhams HADAS Jo Nelhams HADAS Joanna Lambert Tibbalds Planning & Design John Bowra, Chairman Christ's College Finchley John Dix Resident John Jenkins Resident John Silverton Resident Kate Solomon LBB, Care & Repair Manager Kevin Thomas Resident Kim Mason Resident Leena Patel Asian Women's group Linda Farley Resident Linden Grove Garden History Society Margaret West Ravensdale Residents Association Maria Nash Resident Maurice Archer Barnet African Caribbean Association Melvin Gamp Barnet 55+ Mike Dawson Finchley Society Mr & Mrs Sam Ward Resident Mr and Mrs Judith Usiskin Resident Mr Karl E Ruge Whetstone Mr Kuraishi Resident Mr Nick Glancy Resident Mr O'Reilly Resident Mr Salinger Councillor Mrs Edwards Barnet Borough Arts Council Mrs Elisabeth Wardler Lynsdown Association Mrs Oliver East Barnet Parish Association Mrs Patty Skeets Burnt Oak Traders Association Mrs S. Taylor Resident Nick O'Reilly London Fire Brigade Nila Patel Anand Day Centre Patricia Murphy East Finchley Village Society Patrick Bentley Resident Peter Cragg Resident Peter Pickering Finchley Society Rama Khanbar Asian Women's group Robert Husband RSPB Robert Newton North Finchley LA 21 Robert Shutler Woodside Park Residents Association Ross McCalla AS Propery Investors Ltd Stephen Wax Stephen Wax Assoc Stewart Satchel Metropolitan Police Warren Forsythe Middlesex University



4.3.2 Following a short presentation on the issues and options the meetings focused on the five themes that formed the structure of the document.

4.3.3 There was wide ranging discussion about the future shape of the borough and how we manage change. General comments about planning and concerns about specific sites were raised as well as the views expressed on the five themes.

4.4 Theme 1 - Growing successfully • Needs to be greater provision of small workplaces for self-employed people • Skills base of employers such as Middlesex University is valuable as it

contributes to the knowledge economy • Questions raised about what the council was doing to attract new businesses

and employment to Barnet • Barnet overprovided with office space. Provision of new office space in the

regeneration areas will impact on existing office space in Barnet’s town centres.

• Trends indicate less office space will be required in future • Continual loss of offices and cafes in New Barnet. • Concern about loss of employment uses and the failure of the planning

system to prevent such losses. • The contribution of small businesses to the local economy should be

recognised. • When businesses are lost to housing then access to displaced shops or

community facilities is reduced • Employment land is a finite resource and once it is used for housing it is lost

permanently. • Green Belt could be used for industrial use if there was some form of

compensatory provision such as a land swap

4.5 Theme 2 - Delivering the infrastructure to accommodate growth and ensure sustainable development

• Which comes first, growth or infrastructure? It seems like the council is looking for growth without having the necessary infrastructure in place.

• Concern about loss of community facilities to residential and the failure of the planning system to prevent such losses.

• Need to ensure Section 106 money is spent locally within the community where the development takes place

• Local open spaces suffer from the focus on Premier Parks • Highlighted the importance of good quality green spaces to healthier lifestyles • Need to provide more swimming pools (especially for the over 60s) in the

borough, as there are very few. • There is a lack of leisure, arts and sports facilities as a whole in the borough. • No provision for places of worship. Need for a place of spiritual contemplation

within the borough



• No provision to improve tube lines in regeneration areas i.e. Colindale and Mill Hill East. Northern Line provision is not being made to cope with the increased population growth.

• Better local transport by bus is important. • Need to reduce congestion on North Circular and around Henley’s Corner • Monorail is the rail for the future • Day to day access to health care is becoming more difficult • Traffic congestion impacts on day to day activities such as going to the

supermarket • Reduce school traffic as it causes congestion. • North Circular Road difficult to cross • Cycle lanes are not being used efficiently enough. • Cycling in the borough is not promoted enough. • The council seems to be encouraging car parking in residential developments

rather than reducing car dependency • Car clubs and electric cars should be encouraged to mitigate pollution. • Locals are car dependent because public transport is not an option • There should be greater enforcement of the speed limit as the roads have

become rat-runs. • Need for more accessible public toilets • There is growing concern about parking at polyclinics. • Need to provide facilities for older people and young persons

4.6 Theme 3 - Meeting housing aspirations • Barnet’s future should not be just about accommodating population growth • Concern that predicted growth numbers in the borough could not be

accommodated • What impact will the credit crunch have on housing delivery? • Will housing be more affordable to local residents? • Why do we need to build more homes when there are so many lying empty? • There should be a commitment to produce housing of a high quality • Shortage of lower priced rented accommodation • Too many 1 & 2 bedroom properties, buy-to-let and short-term letting. • Shortage of family units (3 & 4 bedroom). • Breakdown of the family structure is affecting housing needs. • Shortages of school and GP places as provision has not kept pace with

residential development • Increased social housing has put further pressure on schools and nurseries • Even with the development of affordable housing it was expressed that people

do not want to move to this area for lack of schools, shops



4.7 Theme 4 - Planning for vitality and viability of a network of suburban town centres

• High Barnet, New Barnet and North Finchley are fading as town centres • In order for town centres to survive they need the presence of a major retailer. • During rush hour the town centres become severely congested. • Parking in town centres is too expensive in Barnet. Parking should be

affordable. • People need cars to shop in the town centres • Proposed that there are different parking rates for different activities and lower

rates for Barnet residents. • Local town centres feel safe in the evening but there was a problem with

parking. • Need for evidence on town centre catchments as centres with larger shops

serve people from further afield. • Need to understand how out of centre places impact on local businesses • Town centres have lost their village community feel. • Reduce car journeys by making town centres places that have local shops for

local residents to use. • Concern about loss of town centre employment and retail uses to residential • What is the linkage between the LDF and the town centre strategies ? • Need to protect local neighbourhood centres. • Arts Depot could be better used in the evenings

4.8 Theme 5 - Planning development and growth to be environmentally sensitive

• Good standards of design should apply across all of Barnet rather than certain parts being afforded a higher level of protection.

• Drainage systems locally cannot cope with current rainfall. • Poor drainage rather than climate change causes flooding • How sustainable are current buildings? Not aware of what can be done to

improve existing homes. • Can the LDF specify the materials to be used in new developments? • Questionable value of use of renewables in out of centre store accessed by

car • Don’t blame flooding on climate change it is more about poor drainage. • Loss of green spaces contributes to climate change. • Insist on the highest level of sustainable construction with suitable cavity

walls. • UK building standards not consistent with EU ones.

4.9 General comments included • The five themes of the Core Strategy are all concerned with growth rather

than the protection of the suburbs



• Issues offer so many generalisations it becomes idealistic • How much autonomy does Barnet have with regard to planning? • Need for more community based approach to planning issues • Need for meaningful partnership rather than consultation • Isolation of communities on the borough periphery • Need to address quality of life • LDF meetings should be more frequent perhaps weekly



5 Report on LDF pre-engagement

workshops 5.1 Are you planning for Barnet? - LDF pre-engagement workshops 5.1.1 In 2007, as part of the pre-engagement exercise for the emerging Core

Strategy Issues and Options document, we held two workshops in Barnet. This section details the issues discussed and points of view raised by attendees at the LDF workshops held on 30th October 2007 at Hendon Town Hall and 21st November 2007 at North London Business Park, Barnet.

5.1.2 A total of 121 individuals, representatives of community groups / organisations, councillors and council staff attended these workshops. A list of attendees is attached at the end of this section.

5.2 Discussion of the issues facing Barnet: 5.2.1 The workshops focused on:

• the natural environment • transport and traffic • delivering housing and homes • planning for Barnet’s economy • enhancing and protecting the suburbs • planning for climate change • meeting the needs of all of Barnet’s communities • historic and cultural heritage

5.3 Workshop 1: The natural environment 5.3.1 This workshop raised the following issues :

• The potential loss of green belt to development. Over the next 10 years pressure of extra population will create pressure to develop housing on Green Belt land.

• By what other means can land be found to accommodate population growth? It was recommended that in order to tackle this situation there needs to be greater protection of green belt land and other open spaces within the borough.

• Sponsorship of open spaces is another potential possibility to raise funding and awareness of Barnet’s natural environment.

• Monitoring policies regarding parks and other green spaces would be a major advantage to the council and residents around the area.

• Greater access to the green belt would allow this amenity to be enjoyed by a greater number of Barnet’s residents.



• Need to protect and preserve the front and rear gardens of properties. This is because they contribute to character, provide natural drainage and therefore mitigate flood risk.

• The rise in the number of hard standings in front gardens was attributed to the fact that there are parking restrictions within the borough and residents feel that there is insufficient parking spaces to park their cars outside their homes.

• It was agreed that high density developments taking place in the future may have a detrimental effect on Barnet’s character.

• Stronger policies need to be enforced to ensure that there is replacement for planting where necessary.

• Natural habitats, including trees and rivers, and wildlife in the borough need greater protection.

• Planning policies should seek to safeguard allotments from being lost to development and place a greater emphasis on there importance and general maintenance.

• Funds for promoting Barnet’s natural environment could potentially be raised through S106 contributions and possibly the ‘Barnet Bond’.

5.4 Workshop 2: Transport and traffic This workshop raised the following issues :

• Need for improved public transport, better parking facilities, improved safety for all road users and the reduction of road traffic.

• Too much reliance on cars to move people around the borough. • Schools should stagger their opening times and promote car sharing during

the school run. Bike sheds could help encourage pupils to cycle to school. • Safety issues between pedestrians and cyclists were raised. • Fares on public transport should be reduced for journeys within the borough. • Charges for parking at shopping centres and all non-residential car parks. • Other general points raised included the need for improved bus services

during off peak times. It was also suggested that there should be better and safer cycling and pedestrian access into town and shopping centres.

• It was suggested that there needed to be allocated spaces for Barnet residents at train and tube stations. It was suggested that cycle lanes in should be provided in back streets as well as on major roads to help to increase cyclists’ safety.

• It was proposed that road access in residential areas should be restricted to residents only and that there should be no through roads in major residential areas, instead it was suggested that we have one-way systems around large residential areas.

5.5 Workshop 3: Delivering housing and homes This workshop raised the following issues :

• Can present infrastructure cope with the projected growth • Figures from the 2001 census are inaccurate. The population is larger than

the official figures suggest. • Lifetime homes do not resolve the housing issues facing Barnet



• Compromise should be made in some instances allowing less affordable housing to be provided by developers and more 4 and 5 bedroom properties to be built instead.

• Barnet has suffered the loss of many terraced houses. This has exacerbated parking difficulties.

• There is much debate about houses as opposed to density. Higher densities require greater infrastructure, particularly roads, schools and hospitals.

• Increased housing densities may diminish Barnet’s attractiveness and harm its character in the future. Therefore it was felt that effective monitoring should be conducted in order to control housing density in the borough.

• There are too many poor quality housing development schemes. • New Conservation Areas are detrimental to housing development. Areas need

to be identified where sustainable development can take place. • More mixed use and mixed tenure developments need to be promoted within

the borough.

5.6 Workshop 4: Planning for Barnet’s economy This workshop raised the following issues :

• Healthy town centres should offer a variety of facilities to attract people to use them. More local jobs within the borough would lead to more sustainable communities being created.

• Park and ride type commuting into London is creating parking problems. • Consider change of use of residential buildings to commercial uses. This

would create additional employment opportunities within the borough. • The growth of small, local shopping centres should be encouraged. This is

because they incorporate public services such as libraries, post offices and good parking facilities. They help facilitate mixed use development.

• Pedestrianisation could make shopping areas more attractive and accessible to people. By creating work and leisure facilities in close proximity to residential areas more sustainable communities can be formed.

• Affordable rents in town centres would encourage and promote start-up businesses. Town centres also provide the opportunity to create thriving evening economies and provide further employment.

• Many manual jobs are not actually performed by Barnet’s residents. • In the future more people will be working from home. This method of working

is being encouraged by many larger companies and public institutions. Consideration should be made to calculate the long term impact that home working will have on the borough.

5.7 Workshop 5: Enhancing and protecting the suburbs This workshop raised the following issues :

• Improve car parking facilities in Barnet’s town centres. • Greater retail offerings would lead to greater vitality within town centres. • Long-term vacant retail units could be used for non-retail development. • Need for a revision of class usage composition in town centre policy. • Increase the size of family home as a cheaper alternative to moving home. • Low density housing is an attractive feature of suburban living. The character

of residential areas within the borough are changing through the practice of



allowing more flatted development to take place rather than building more traditional family houses.

• Give young starters the chance to purchase their own homes and also the need to provide adequate housing for the elderly and the retired.

• Designing out crime should ensure that places are welcoming and inviting to use and takes into consideration the needs of the users.

• A borough-wide audit of green spaces could be carried out; identifying redundant or underused areas.

• There was a general consensus that open spaces should not be built on because they are pleasant to look at and they have valuable health implications as people use open spaces for recreation and leisure.

• To maintain the character of Barnet as a suburb requires an understanding of why people move to Barnet, and what is the attraction/appeal of the area.

5.8 Workshop 6: Planning for climate change This workshop raised the following issues :

• In order to mitigate the challenges that climate change will bring, early anticipation and planning needs to be conducted to reduce the impact that these changes will bring.

• A recycling strategy needs to be formalised by the council to outline how the council will over the long term seek to cut carbon emissions within the borough across different sectors.

• All future public facilities that are constructed should aim to be carbon neutral. • Incentives could be introduced to encourage property owners to make their

properties more environmentally sound. • New planning policy rules need to be introduced for new build developments

to regulate development more closely. Households should only be allowed to use up to 50% of the area of their front gardens for hard standings.

• As the borough contains a considerable number of flats, developers should ensure that there is sufficient space within new flatted developments to incorporate recycling facilities.

• Climate change has the potential to have a negative impact on biodiversity within the borough. This needs to be monitored to safeguard habitats for different species.

• Building stock is renewed very rarely (every 100 years or so). Replacing this stock with carbon neutral and more energy efficient buildings will also take a long time.

• The energy efficiency of buildings could also be increased by incorporating renewable energy sources such as solar panels and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and by improving the heat insulation of the building by using green roofs.

5.9 Workshop 7: Meeting the needs of all of Barnet’s communities This workshop raised the following issues :

• How are S106 funds are being used within their communities. • Communities also need to be better informed of existing services within their

vicinities. All community service facilities should be accessible to everyone. • Disabled access could be improved in many public buildings.



• Children from within the borough should be given priority in relation to the allocation of school places.

• Avenues need to be explored to safeguard the existing post offices in the borough because they served a valuable community function.

• There is a lack of educational activities with playing fields. • Existing community facilities would better serve the communities they are in if

they are enable users to access their facilities both in the daytime and evenings.

• With the recent and planned closure of healthcare facilities across the borough there are concerns that supply will not be able to meet demand.

• Existing facilities are poorly located with inadequate public transport services. Cycle routes that exist within the borough are not attractive for cyclists.

5.10 Workshop 8: Historic and cultural heritage This workshop raised the following issues :

• Concern about how future housing development will affect the established character of the borough.

• Barnet is losing garden space. This is an amenity which is not only enjoyed by the land owner but also neighbouring residents.

• Developments are taking place whereby Victorian/Georgian residential properties are being demolished and are being replaced with flatted developments with associated off-street parking. Such development is detrimental to the character of that particular area.

• Areas with a pleasant character should be afforded some protection – similar to a conservation area. These areas may not have specific historic or architectural interest but should be protected from overdevelopment and development which would degrade character.

5.11 List of Attendees 5.11.1 The following list of individuals attended LDF workshops that were held on 30

October and 21 November 2007 at Hendon Town Hall and North London Business Park.

Name Organisation or Resident Adam Driscoll S106 Officer, LBB Alana Lau Resident Alvin Ormond Planning & Project Management Services Andrew Dismore Member Parliament Anna Scott Environment Agency Anthony Powell Crime Prevention Design Adviser Antonio Cruz Comer Homes Barbara Herridge NLWA Barry Lewis Arch 7 Design Cathy Munonyedi Planning Policy Team LBB Charles Harvey Resident Charles Wicksteed Resident Chris Hurwitz Bremner Resident Chris Nightingale Spaces Clare Coats EDAW



Claudia McLaughlin Resident Clive Cohen London Wildlife Trust (Barnet Group) Cllr Brian Sallinger Barnet Member Cllr Colin Rogers Barnet Member Cllr Duncan Macdonald Barnet Member Cllr Geoff Cooke Barnet Member Cllr John Hart Barnet Member Cllr Julie Johnson Barnet Member Cllr Lynne Hillan Barnet Member Cllr Marina Yannakoudakis

Barnet Member

Cllr Melvin Cohen Barnet Member Colin Evans Resident Corey Chambers Resident Dalia Lichfield Lichfield Planning David Howard FORAB David Lockett North London Chamber of Commerce David Moran Development Control Planner, LBB Dennis Pepper London Wildlife Trust (Barnet Group) Derek Chandler Resident Derek Chung West Hendon Resident's Association Diana Furley Lyonsdown Residents' Group Dorothy Evans Resident Dr Natubhai shah Barnet Multi-Faith Groups Dunston Patterson Resident Edward Calloway Resident Elaine Parker Assistant Development Director - Network Housing Association Elizabeth Wardle Lyonsdown Residents' Group Erica Mason Vetting Team, LBB Eshan Karunatillka LDF Programme Manager, LBB Fleming, Kim Royal Free Hospital NHS TRUST Gardy Vaswani Resident Gerry Bates Resident Gillian Palmer Children’s service, LBB Glynnis Joffe Adult Health Partnerships, LBB Gordon Charatan Architect Harry Levy West Hendon Resident Helen Bangs Heritage Team, LBB Helen Massey Barnet Residents Association Helen Wood London Development Agency James Stevens House Building Federation Jenny Bruce Resident Jeremy Parker Barnet Cyclists Jo Dowling Major Projects, LBB John Living Mill Hill Preservation Society John Parker Friern Village Residents Association John Toseland Resident Josef Sucharewicz AS Property Investment Karina Sissman Development Control Area Team Manager, LBB Karl E Ruge Friern Barnet & Whetstone Residents Association



Kate Kennally Assistant Director of Social Services Kate Roskell Head Teacher St Mary's C of E High School Katy Ward Teacher - Martin Primary School Keith Ginsburg Strategic Consultant Kevin Green Mill Hill Preservation Society Lee Parchment Friern Village Residents Association Liz Lightbourne Environment Agency Lucy Williams Teacher - Martin Primary School Mac McKenny The Whetstone Society Margaret Robbins Resident Maria Fiore Resident Maria Nash DAB Mark Lees Comer Homes Mark Rawcliffe Arch 7 Design Mary Joseet Resident Mary Karaolis Head Teacher Ravenscroft Mike Dawson The Finchley society Mike Freestone Director of Environment & Transport Mr A M Kahorshidian M K Architects Mr Deakin Jehovah's Witnesses Mr M. Kuraishi Muslim Welfare Society Mr Massey Barnet Residents Association Mrs A Epstein Resident Mrs Coupe Resident Neil Blackshaw HUDU Neil Goldberg Planning Policy Team. LBB Nicholas Mottershead Resident Nick Lynch Planning Policy Team, LBB Nicola Bird Regeneration Department, LBB Nicola Buck Environment Department, LBB Oliver Burston Resident Oliver Stanley Resident Peter Kyte consultant Peter Pickering The Finchley society Philip Murphy Resident Philip Osei Mensah Planning Policy Team LBB Rabbi Meyer Head teacher of Hasmonean High School’s Boys’ Rebecca Mottershead Resident Rita Brar Planning Policy Team LBB Robert Newton North Finchley LA 21 Robert Shutler Resident Robin Pearson Planning Consultant Pearson Associates Roger Bailey Friern Village Residents Association Roger Chapman Finchley Community Development Trust Ros Ward Planning Policy Manager, LBB Rosie Evangelou Consultation Unit, LBB Shakil Ahmed Ayesha Community Education Steve Knight Middlesex University Steve Rawlings Notting Hill Housing Stewart Murray Director of Planning, LBB



Susanne Mahdavi M K Architects Terry Amos Resident Vijaya Ram Planning LBB Virginia Cameron Resident Warren Forsyth Middlesex University Zenda Green Mill Hill Preservation Society



6 Citizens Panel Responses 6.1.1 Barnet's Citizens' Panel was set up in November 1997. The panel is made up

of 1,000 Barnet residents, selected to be representative of the adult population of the borough based on ward, age, gender, ethnicity, socio economic and employment status, housing tenure, faith and disability. The aim, therefore, is to have a panel that produces an accurate picture of Barnet residents' views. A total of 320 members of the Panel made a total of 21,451 comments on the Issues and Options document. Whilst largely supportive of the 80 options the Panel provided some stimulating feedback on the 5 themes which are set out below. This feedback has informed the development of the Core Strategy - Direction of Travel.

6.1.2 Looking at the questionnaire responses, the most positive feedback was for the following questions

• Should we provide more detailed guidance to developers and residents on urban design throughout the borough? (3.09)

• Should we continue our existing approach to protecting and enhancing the suburbs? (3.11)

• Should we seek to protect more local neighbourhood centres and parades of shops? (4.07)

• Should we expect developers to provide evidence that the proposed location is sustainable, or that it can be made so as a result of development, for example by improving access to public transport? (5.01)

• Should we continue our existing approach to sustainable design and construction in order to make Barnet one of London’s most sustainable and environmentally responsible city suburbs and boroughs? (5.03)




6.1.3 And the least positive support was for the following .1.3 And the least positive support was for the following

Citizen's Panel Core Strategy Issues and Options Responses - Five Most Positive Results

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

3.09

3.11

4.07

5.01

5.03

Option

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

• Should retail growth be accommodated within a limited number of the largest town centres? (4.02)

• Should retail growth be accommodated within a limited number of the largest town centres? (4.02)

• Should we expect smaller homes throughout Barnet? (3.23) • Should we expect smaller homes throughout Barnet? (3.23) • Should growth be allowed to take place across all parts of the borough? (3.03) • Should growth be allowed to take place across all parts of the borough? (3.03) • Should we increase road capacity to reduce traffic congestion? (2.08) • Should we increase road capacity to reduce traffic congestion? (2.08)

• Should we encourage people to use public transport, for example by limiting parking provision? (2.04)

• Should we encourage people to use public transport, for example by limiting parking provision? (2.04)

Negative ResponsePositive Response


November 2009 Page 51

6.1.4 Citizen’s Panel Questionnaire Responses

Citizens Panel

Responses Theme 1 Theme 2 Option 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06a 2.06b 2.08 2.10 2.11a 2.11b 2.12 2.13 2.14

Responses 105 106 98 216 250 236 236 218 219 137 217 243 161 153 285 249 268 185 286 216 Responses 60 36 43 79 91 82 177 94 52 124 143 20 59 22 121 23 80

Citizens Panel

Responses Theme 3 Option 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17

Responses 208 212 158 248 239 283 170 272 287 253 288 278 251 283 225 282 241 Responses 101 95 158 59 74 34 138 38 21 50 22 34 63 28 81 25 65

Citizens Panel

Responses Theme 3 Option 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.26 3.28 3.29 3.30 3.31 3.33 3.34 3.35

Responses 272 See below 278 213 223 106 178 247 205 94 142 49 210 233 196 228

Responses 42 See below 30 82 75 199 125 56 103 80 52 97 68

Citizens Panel

Responses Theme 4 Option 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.18

Responses 216 149 178 177 244 242 295 242 163 203 180 183 221 160 212 191 186 Responses 72 145 120 118 51 61 14 70 142 92 124 118 72 141 85 102 113

Citizens Panel Responses Theme 5

Option 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04 5.05 5.06 5.07 Responses 293 276 296 See box below 214 215 249 Responses 13 27 7 See box below 98 90 54


Citizens Panel Responses to 3.19 – What weight should be given to meeting housing need ?

The comments set out below have been selected to illustrate the main points and issues raised by the Panel. The Citizens Panel told us about:

6.1.5 Theme 1 – Growing Successfully

• Barnet should ensure that there is a large variety of educational opportunities primarily for the younger generation and that every effort should be made to encourage education at all levels

• The idea of Barnet being a 'University town' is excellent and should improve (hopefully) the tones, views, colours and arts in the borough an educated influx of young people should enrich everyone

• Ideally there should be a mix of dwellings and commercial or industrial premises so that employees do not have to travel far to work. In addition to higher education encourage apprenticeships for manual employment

• Learning and earning i.e. encouraging apprenticeships within the work place. Not all young people need 'degrees' to succeed

• Do we need more housing? Are we full to capacity? What is the point of more sites where there is no proven need

• Post credit crunch, we need places to work close to where we live • 'Mixed use developments' would be a recipe for the creation of the future slum

area and should be avoided, the separation of commercial/employment areas and residential developments would create more environmentally 'friendly' areas

• Do not rely on retail and services for sustained growth, we need to examine the role that manufacturing has on the suburbs. We are facing a recession which will last, this does not bode well for retail development

• Without specific employment sites in the borough, Barnet could become a 'dormitory' suburb with very little skills infrastructure of it's own. Therefore both employment and educational sites need to be nurtured

• Knowledge is power, but people buy things so we must retain the ability to make things

Very important 152

Important 128 Neither Important nor Unimportant 29

Not very Important 6

Not at all Important 3

Citizens Panel Responses to 5.04 – Should we consider climate change to be the overriding principle for new development ?

Very important 145

Important 105

Neither Important nor Unimportant 34

Not very Important 26

Not at all Important 7



6.1.6 Theme 2 – Delivering the infrastructure to accommodate growth and ensure sustainable development.

• Better road management. Limit road works and insist they've finished in a timely manner and synchronise traffic signals to enable smooth flow of traffic.

• Get Barnet moving by improving the road capacity, also by using hopper buses on small roads to ease congestion and get to areas that buses don't go, so people are left with no options but to use cars.

• We have to accept that the car is here to stay and try to find ways to accommodate it's use. Development in general has to be controlled if we are to maintain the existing environment

• Deliveries between 6am-7am and 8pm-9pm to all businesses will make movement easier

• The 'school run' causes a lot of congestion morning and afternoon. Walking children to school would help cut congestion and is a good way to keep fit for parent and child

• Cycling is seen as too dangerous at the present time but implementing a cycle lane scheme would encourage people to use bicycles.

• Make use of car clubs • Better public transport - Especially East/West links. Alternative/different car

use (electric vehicles or similar). Rational traffic planning i.e. speed guidance on North Circular.

• It is vital that the green open spaces be protected for the health (and air quality) of the community living around them.

• With an ageing population in Barnet also ethnic and religious diversity it is important that community facilities are accessible to all residents

6.1.7 Theme 3 – Meeting Housing Aspirations

• We cannot meet the housing (or any other) aspirations of anyone who wants to come and live here

• The entire theme has consisted of leading questions worded in a way that show that the council wants to concentrate high density and social housing in less affluent parts of the borough, whilst 'protecting the suburbs' of the wealthy. This is appalling, the burden of increased housing requirements must be shared across the community

• This smacks of Social Engineering!!! • Not just flats, families need houses • Build more one bedroom units for first time buyers and then some 2 bed units

for the people to move up to as the family grows and then some 3 bed units • Don't ruin the quality suburbs of Barnet! • Although housing is an urgent need, we must make sure that we don't

override the fine qualities of space and greenery from a burgeoning community. All housing should be balanced and mixed.

• Provision of affordable housing throughout the borough is very important but it should be of a good overall design and quality new housing developments should be evenly distributed across Barnet



• Affordable housing should only be allowed in areas where there is adequate infrastructure i.e. schools, parking, shops, green space and should not appreciably change the nature of the local life. The ethos of owner occupier and self sufficiency should not be endangered, don't turn good areas into bad ones.

• We need to keep a mix of social and private housing or areas become 'no go'

6.1.8 Theme 4 – Planning for vitality and viability of a network of suburban town centres

• The balance of evening and night time economy at the moment is about right, there are some areas at night where there is a high amount of night time activity which should not be expanded

• Evening and night time entertainment should be limited to town centres so that they cause the least amount of disturbances to residents. Also easy to police.

• All town centres should have some 'evening/night time economy' but more accessible town-centres with less residential accommodation should have more

• Places like Brent Cross shopping centre have the scope for some leisure activities besides being purely a shopping centre

• It is vitally important to maintain local shopping parades which makes shopping accessible to local community who could walk to their local shop, it identifies a community and to lose these would mean more cars

• Viability and vitality depends on accessibility. Car parking is not the answer - there will never be enough. Efficient, safe, convenient public transport - and cycle friendly high streets are essential to re-invigorate town centres. I'm also sick of the obsession with retail, why can't we encourage the creation of genuine wealth creating jobs

• Local shops are a must for the senior citizens who do not have a car and need to shop day to day, sometimes just to get out of the house and meet people.

• There needs to be less focus on building more shops and more focus on filling the empty ones

• Growth should be concentrated in a few bigger town centres. Smaller centres should be preserved and should provide only a range of vital services. People will thus have a choice whether to live in a busy or a more quiet area of the borough

• I would like to see improved town centres encouraging small businesses, not major supermarkets

6.1.9 Theme 5 – Planning, development and growth to be environmentally sensitive

• Climate change is a global issue. I do not believe the council should put this before housing, education, health and transport

• Environmentally friendly development should be sought in all cases. • Stay away from areas prone to flooding • Improve waste recycling



• No reason why more environmentally products cannot be used in housing construction – see Grand Designs!

• Design and quality should always be more important than sustainability • Design should incorporate solar and wind generated energy in all new builds • Preserving nature and lower pollution should be in the core of any growth

strategy as it will definitely pay back in the long run. I feel like it is not being properly addressed at the moment

• Buildings in the future should be designed with adaptability to climate change in mind

• There is no real evidence of global warming or climate change

The Citizen’s Panel also told us

6.1.10 What we missed in the Core Strategy Issues and Options

• Telecom infrastructure and access to good broadband speeds • Provision for the Olympics in 2012 • Cleaner streets • Planning for disabled people • Planning for youth • Maintain and improve existing green spaces • Parking should be freed from constraints • Cinemas • Swimming pools • Less infill development

6.1.11 And what they thought of the questionnaire

• If you expect your panel members to understand or be educated sufficiently to appreciate all the jargon, corporation think and abbreviations on the LDF think again!

• I'm sorry, but I have given up on this questionnaire as these are all complex issues and I’m reluctant to give simple yes/no answers to them.

• I'm concerned that without background in these areas i'm not qualified to answer them properly. This was not the right format.

• I did not find this easy to complete, sometimes I wanted to say perhaps, or 'it depends on the circumstances' rather than yes or no

• Exactly what was meant by the options was not always clear, others contained more than one point but were only yes/no, required to give opinions where level of knowledge of subject is insufficient

• This is a very difficult questionnaire, with leading questions, poorly stated questions and too little opportunity to comment. You will be able to make your results, say anything from this, which therefore will not provide a real insight into your stakeholder views

• I think it is a very good report and hopefully, it can be put into action, especially the housing programme



• Please make sure that future surveys use proper English. They should be proofread. Every highlighted line has the same mistake. There are also many other mistakes but it would take too long to list them all especially as the survey itself is very time consuming.



7 Representations Submitted via ‘Three

Strands Petition’ 7.1.1 In total 41 representations were made which subscribe to the criteria set out in

the table below.

Summary of Representation

1 Strand 1: Green Belt and Open Spaces Absolute' protection should mean absolute protection not only for the Green Belt but also for: - existing parks and Metropolitan Open Land - nature conservation sites and small local open areas - back gardens and similar backland areas - allotments, trees and wildlife habitats.

2 Strand 2: Protecting and enhancing suburbs the council should ensure that: - our suburban town centres are protected by safeguarding the variety of local retail and business outlets - as far as possible flat development is located above retail and business premises and any necessary town centre development does not conflict in design and scale with what exists - free short stay town centre parking is available.

3 Any major new development proposals in town centres should be fully discussed with local residents before being determined by the Council. - Suburban houses and gardens are protected from new flat developments or conversions for which there is no evidential need.

4 Strand 3: Growth and Regeneration Employment - The new strategy must provide opportunities for people to work locally and for local small businesses to expand. To this end the Council should safeguard employment land and premises.

5 Transport and Infrastructure - Adequate infrastructural investment (in, for example, public transport, doctor’s surgeries, and basic utilities) should be in place before any new developments are approved.

6 Regeneration - New development should be incorporated in regeneration and development areas and in our failing houses estates. Elsewhere the Council should ensure the protection of our suburban streets from further high rise developments.

Our Response We consider that the Core Strategy Direction of Travel has addressed the issues raised in the Three Strands petition : 1. Green Belt and Open Space - Core Strategy Policy CS 5 - Enhancing and

Protecting Barnet's Open Spaces - protects designated open spaces including Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land as well as land with potential to be used as open space. It ensures that access to open spaces is improved and that they become more attractive as places to a wider range of users. It also seeks to protect incidental existing sites of Nature Conservation Importance, biodiversity, greenspace trees, hedgerows and allotments.

2. Protecting and Enhancing Suburbs - Core Strategy Policy CS 3 on Protecting

and Enhancing Barnet’s Character. This sets out local priorities for design and



basis for identifying those parts of Barnet outside Conservation Areas which may be worthy of protection because of their distinctiveness. Provides basis for more detailed design guidance on streets whose residential character has changed and which may be more appropriate for higher density development such as flats rather than houses. Core Strategy Policy CS 4 – Promoting Barnet’s Town Centres - sets out priorities for improving larger town centres, ensuring efficient use of land and buildings in such locations while encouraging a mix of uses including retail, workspace, leisure and housing. It also provides protection for local neighbourhood centres and parades of shops because of their contribution to sustainable suburbs. Short trip parking is considered as one of several measures for improving the attractiveness of town centres.

3 Engagement with Residents – through the programme of town centre

frameworks in the six priority town centres development opportunities can be discussed prior to proposals being submitted.

4. Growth and Regeneration - Core Strategy Policy CS 6 - Promoting a Strong and

Prosperous Barnet - sets out how we support businesses (especially small to medium enterprises) and residents (particularly in developing skills) to access the regeneration opportunities in a changing borough. We safeguard existing employment sites that meet the needs of modern business.

5. Transport and Infrastructure – Core Strategy Policy CS 14 - Delivering the Core

Strategy – sets out monitoring arrangements and provides context for the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and how the necessary infrastructure will be funded and delivered.

6. Regeneration - Core Strategy Policy CS 1 - Barnet's Spatial Strategy - Protection,

Enhancement and Growth - sets out the vision of how Barnet will change and where that change will happen. Core Strategy Policy CS 2 - Distribution of Growth in Meeting Housing Aspirations - sets out the most sustainable locations for housing growth in the west of the borough together with the priority housing estates, larger town centres and major arterial corridors. It also sets out how much these areas will contribute to an estimated supply of 28,000 new units between 2011/12 and 2026/27.



8 ‘Save Our Suburbs’ Representations 8.1.1 In total 17 representations were made which subscribe to the criteria set out in

the table below.

Summary of Representation 1 1. Houses: please save our suburban houses and gardens from new flatted developments and conversions.

2 2. Open Space: please give absolute protection to our small open areas and allotments along with the Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and parks and save our back gardens and back land from development.

3 3. Town Centres: please protect the borough's suburban townscapes, safeguard the variety of local retail and business outlets, limit development to flats above business premises and provide free short stay town centre parking.

4 4. Employment: please provide opportunities for people to work locally and for local small business expansion by safeguarding employment land and premises.

5 5. Transport and Infrastructure: please ensure adequate investment in infrastructure such as public transport, doctors' surgeries and utility provision before approving new development.

6 6. Regeneration: please save us from further high rise development, improve our failed housing estates and otherwise direct new development to designated regeneration and development areas.

Our Response We consider that the Core Strategy Direction of Travel has addressed the issues raised in the Save our Suburbs petition :

• Houses – Core Strategy Policy CS 3 on Protecting and Enhancing Barnet’s Character. This sets out local priorities for design and basis for identifying those parts of Barnet outside Conservation Areas which may be worthy of protection because of their distinctiveness. Provides basis for more detailed design guidance on streets whose residential character has changed and which may be more appropriate for higher density development such as flats rather than houses.

• Open Space – Core Strategy Policy CS 5 - Enhancing and Protecting Barnet's Open Spaces - protects designated open spaces including Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land as well as land with potential to be used as open space. It ensures that access to open spaces is improved and that they become more attractive as places to a wider range of users. It also seeks to protect incidental greenspace trees, hedgerows and allotments.

• Town Centres – Core Strategy Policy CS 4 – Promoting Barnet’s Town Centres - sets out priorities for improving larger town centres, ensuring efficient use of land and buildings in such locations while encouraging a mix of uses including retail, workspace, leisure and housing. It also provides protection for local neighbourhood centres and parades of shops because of their contribution to sustainable suburbs. Short trip parking is considered as one of several measures for improving the attractiveness of town centres.

• Employment - Core Strategy Policy CS 6 - Promoting a Strong and Prosperous Barnet - sets out how we support businesses (especially small to medium



enterprises) and residents (particularly in developing skills) to access the regeneration opportunities in a changing borough. We safeguard existing employment sites that meet the needs of modern business.

• Transport and Infrastructure - Core Strategy Policy CS 8 - Providing Integrated and Efficient Travel – promotes delivery of integrated transport infrastructure and increased availability of travel choices in order to support growth, relieve pressure on Barnet's transport network and reduce the environmental impact of travel

• Regeneration - Core Strategy Policy CS 1 - Barnet's Spatial Strategy - Protection, Enhancement and Growth - sets out the vision of how Barnet will change and where that change will happen. Core Strategy Policy CS 2 - Distribution of Growth in Meeting Housing Aspirations - sets out the most sustainable locations for housing growth in the west of the borough together with the priority housing estates, larger town centres and major arterial corridors. It also sets out how much these areas will contribute to an estimated supply of 28,000 new units between 2011/12 and 2026/27.



9 Responses from Citizens Panel and Questionnaire Forms

9.1 Questionnaire Responses to Themes 1 and 2 • We received 569 individual questionnaire responses to Themes 1 and 2

9.2 Questionnaire Responses to Theme 3 • We received 916 individual questionnaire responses to Theme 3

9.3 Questionnaire Responses to Themes 4 and 5 • We received 713 individual questionnaire responses to Theme 4 and 5

Total Number of Questionnaire Responses for Each Theme Theme 1 Theme2 Theme 3 Theme 4 Theme 5 Totals Questionnaire Form Responses 147 422 916 450 281 2216Citizens Panel Responses 1150 4240 9147 5082 1832 21451

Theme 1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

1.01

1.02

1.03

1.04

1.05

1.06

Opt

ions

Number of Responses

ObjectingSupporting

Grand Total 23667

Fig. 1 Theme 1 – Growing Successfully

Fig. 2



Fig 2. Theme 2 – Delivering the infrastructure to accommodate growth and ensure

sustainable development.

Theme 2

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

2.012.022.032.042.05

2.06a2.06b2.082.10

2.11a2.11b2.122.132.14

Opt

ions

Number of Responses

ObjectingSupporting



Fig. 3 Theme 3 – Meeting Housing Aspirations

Theme 3

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

3.013.023.033.043.053.063.073.083.093.103.113.123.133.143.153.163.173.183.193.203.213.223.233.243.253.263.283.293.303.313.333.343.35

Opt

ions

Number of Responses

ObjectingSupporting



Fig.4 Theme 4 – Planning for vitality and viability of a network of suburban town centres

Theme 4

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

4.01

4.02

4.03

4.04

4.05

4.06

4.07

4.08

4.09

4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

4.16

4.18

Opt

ions

Number of Responses

ObjectingSupporting



Fig.5 Theme 5 – Planning, development and growth to be environmentally sensitive.

Theme 5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

5.01

5.02

5.03

5.04

5.05

5.06

5.07

Opt

ions

Number of Responses

ObjectingSupporting


barnet’s core strategy issues and options consultation report · local development framework...

Documents